Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< November 20	November 22 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:42, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arts Marketing Association

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined prod. A search for sources found nothing indepth. 1 of the 2 supplied sources is its own website. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 22:16, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Organizations, and United Kingdom. LibStar (talk) 22:16, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV. Seems to have quite a lot of coverage in books on arts marketing and management. Theres coverage in The Routledge Companion to Arts Marketing (2013, Routledge) Arts Marketing Insights: The Dynamics of Building and Retaining Performing Arts Audiences (2011, Wiley), Arts Marketing (2007, Taylor & Francis), Strategic Management in the Arts (2013, Taylor & Francis), etc. There are 219 hits in google scholar. Was a WP:BEFORE done?4meter4 (talk) 21:04, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete As it is now, this subject does not seem notable, and I'm not sure if it ever could be, but I am happy to change my mind if someone volunteers to clean up and expand this article into something that meets notability thresholds. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: perhaps one more week will make a consensus more clear...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:42, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The coverage in these highly specialised marketing books is entirely trivial, passing mentions (mentions in people's CVs and the like) every one. The mention of the Arts Marketing Association in scholarly books about Arts Marketing should not really be a surprise (and no prejudice at all to the nominator for their WP:BEFORE), but there is no sustained or significant coverage in ANY of these titles to merit a pass of WP:GNG let alone NCORP. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Related sources I found: Full page- classical-music-uk, 2 Mentions- heritagefund, 1 mention- museumsandheritage, Guardian artprofessional artprofessional theartnewspaper.

ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 13:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although there are mentions in books, they are mostly passing mentions. Even the reference in the Routledge Companion looks like one line, in a contributor's biography. I'd have expected more coverage in that book if the organisation's activities are notable. This, about their mentoring scheme, looks like the most extended coverage, but reads WP:ROUTINE to me. I have looked at the Google scholar results, of which the most substantial looks as if it is in the book Creative Arts Marketing; the introduction is by the then chair of the AMA, but apart from that the coverage is mostly in one paragraph and mainly gives the number of members in 2001 and a bit about training and events. It does mention that the organisation was created from two other local or regional orgs, so possibly there's a bit more out there in pre-internet sources, but I'm not too hopeful. I did look at the British Newspaoer Archive - I don't have full access, but the search results were fairly minimal. The significant coverage found by Exclusive Editor in classical-music.uk reads like a press release and also looks like routine coverage. Tacyarg (talk) 14:46, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Even though the AFD nominator was a sockpuppet, it appears that there is a consensus here to Delete this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lu (music)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It is written as an original investigation, Fails WP:SIGCOV. Jinnllee90 (talk) 21:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:23, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't really see how a one-sentence stub article with a book reference falls under the description in the nomination above? Anyway, a Google Books search shows other summaries of this music, such as in Rachel Pang 's recent "Singer of the land of snows", where Lu can be seen described as "deeply rooted in the popular, oral and folk traditions of Tibet". AllyD (talk) 11:03, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~Merge and redirect~~: A similar summary exists in Music of Tibet#History, but without a reference. I think that can provide a WP:ATD target. AllyD (talk) 11:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC) Changed to Delete, based on Folly Mox's changes and discussion points below. (And I also learned a lot about additional referencing options from those changes to the Music of Tibet article.) AllyD (talk) 10:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've boldly performed the merge into Music of Tibet § History after also finding a better source. I'm landing on delete instead of redirect for a few reasons:
- The disambiguator (music) here is not very helpful, and fails PRECISE.
- It's not clear whether "lu", on its own, is a full transliteration of the Tibetan word for this topic. I'm not familiar with Tibetan, but I know its phonology contrasts two vowel lengths and two or more vowel tones, none of which are indicated anywhere here, nor is a native term provided to assist searching for additional information.
- Subsidiary to this, the Chinese terms for the subject (spelt including the loangraph 魯) never refer to the subject using only that word, which is ambiguous outside the context of historical geography. (This term is also not provided in the article, and it took me probably twenty minutes to narrow down keyword searches sufficiently to find a Chinese source on the topic.)
- No good redirect target unless we want to break out a separate subheading in Music of Tibet specifically for folk music. That article is currently partitioned entirely differently: § History is mostly about sacred music, with a single paragraph touching on secular folk forms; § Popular and modern seems inapplicable. A subparagraph anchor to the single sentence on "lu" folk music would be a disappointing clickthrough.
- Most of the inlinks are from template transclusions, so cleanup should be easy. I did retain the link at Music of Tibet § History just in case.
If someone wants to expand on the subject we could revisit a potential redirect or recreation. AllyD seems to have found sources, and the source I added has good further information, although only the first half of the article is visible without registration.
Noting I also don't understand / agree with the nomination rationale. Folly Mox (talk) 14:52, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CU note nominator blocked as a checkuser confirmed sock.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:40, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Prisoner cast members. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Rowland

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete - my WP:BEFORE didn't turn up any decent sources with significant coverage - listings and fan sites only. Even if there was something for her role on Prisoner, I suggest that that alone would not be sufficient for WP:NACTOR and in particular significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions - Prisoner seems to be the highlight. As an alternative, could Redirect to List of Prisoner cast members. SunloungerFrog (talk) 22:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and Australia. SunloungerFrog (talk) 22:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:15, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In absence of significant coverage about her life, redirect to List of Prisoner cast members is the most reasonable alternative. Pichpich (talk) 23:43, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 22:52, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uzemehefe (name)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This name page does not appear to meet our notability guidelines. My WP:BEFORE reveals only passing mentions in lists of Nigerian names, no significant coverage. A search on Wikipedia for "Uzemehefe" reveals no matches, so it cannot be converted to a disambiguation page. I am also not seeing a plausible redirect target, so I believe deletion is in order. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Nigeria. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely zero, literally ZERO, out there. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – two of the refs in the article don't even mention it as far as I can tell. Does not meet GNG. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 01:07, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For any new page reviewers seeing this, there is centralized discussion of many similar Nigerian name articles at WP:ANI#Nigerian name project. I created this AfD before beeing aware of the thread, and I'd suggest holding off on nominating similar articles for deletion until the discussion is resolved. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Dutch-Portuguese War#Incursion into the East Indies: Batavia challenges Goa. asilvering (talk) 22:52, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Action of 23 March 1654

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was tagged as a hoax. I'm fairly certain it is, along with Action of 2 May 1654, but since the article has existed for nearly 20 years at this point I figured it made sense to give it a fighting chance.

The 2 May 1654 article cites this JSTOR article. I couldn't find reference to events on 23 March or 2 May 1654 in that article, nor could I find evidence of these events elsewhere on the web besides Wikipedia mirrors.

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Action of 16 April 1695, where a similar conclusion was drawn. Sam Walton (talk) 21:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Sri Lanka, and Portugal. Sam Walton (talk) 21:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dutch-Portuguese War#Incursion into the East Indies: Batavia challenges Goa. The cited JSTOR article describes in great detail the Van Goens mission to Colombo and Goa in 1653 and 1654. Page 94 reads: "The galleons had reached Colombo towards the end of March 1654 and, as Van Goens had feared, after a splintering engagement outside the Colombo harbour entrance, they had broken through". This description fits the Action of 23 March 1654 exactly: place, date, situation, context, number of ships, result. The article is certainly not a hoax; the battle indeed took place and I am sure that a more thorough investigation could reveal the source that the author of this article evidently must have used. Having said that, it is clear to me that the title of the article is wrong. For lack of a commonly accepted name for the battle, a descriptive name was employed: Action of 23 March 1654. The battle is not known and described under that name. Many articles titled "Action of (date)" have the same problem. No battle is known by such a name. A google or jstor search will not produce any result. What to do? There is a notability guideline that helps out. Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide in the section Events says: Where an event does not have a specific name that has been accepted by reliable sources, it is more likely that it should be covered in an existing article about a higher-level operation, rather than in a stand-alone article. Hence, I propose to merge both the Action of 23 March 1654 and the Action of 2 May 1654 in the article about the Dutch-Portuguese War. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 02:27, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ruud Buitelaar Ah - well spotted. I had assumed that because the article was named so specifically, an event on 23 March would have been specifically dated in the source, I skimmed the relevant sections but missed the quote you added. I think merging makes sense to me since the actions described here did actually happen. Sam Walton (talk) 08:58, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I did a search after looking at the CSD tagging and I couldn't find any coverage in reliable sources that suggested this event took place. I was about to PROD the page since it isn't an obvious or blatant hoax, but no coverage either way. Fathoms Below (talk) 21:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to merging as long as the salvageable material is properly cited to the sourced JSTOR article. Fathoms Below (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the one who posted the initial CSD tag. No results turn up in Google Books or Google Scholar despite apparently being a battle from a major war, making it very likely a fabrication. Lazman321 (talk) 21:42, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced and fails verification. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:30, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dutch-Portuguese War#Incursion into the East Indies: Batavia challenges Goa per above. I'm not sure why you'd vote delete when a merge has been proposed with a valid target and rationale and been accepted as a solution by the nominator! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:01, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexandermcnabb The comment order is confusing, the merge vote came after the delete votes :) Sam Walton (talk) 14:50, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that, then checked. Of course, what I missed was the am and pm bits. Sort of important, wouldntcha think? Boing... idiot... All deleters duly forgiven, apologies and comely blushes all round. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:59, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dutch-Portuguese War#Incursion into the East Indies: Batavia challenges Goa. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:15, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although there isn't much content here, I have checked the Jstor source and this is in fact not a hoax, so I support a merge in principle. Toadspike [Talk] 10:55, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 22:52, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Mingyo

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability for this athlete, other than amateur collegiate titles in a non-NCAA sport. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 21:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, Texas, and Washington. JTtheOG (talk) 21:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 01:08, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT: A search for (secondary) sources turns up nothing providing significant coverage of the athlete. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:08, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant independent coverage. Has earned zero points towards a world ranking and is currently ranked 24th in her division by USATKD. College level success means nothing in the martial arts (see WP:MANOTE). Papaursa (talk) 15:15, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Lekkha Moun (talk) 19:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 22:53, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Waya Boy

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable musician, disputed draftification. Potentially created by an author with a COI but no firm evidence so cannot be re-draftified without discussion at AfD. Bobby Cohn (talk) 20:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Uganda. Bobby Cohn (talk) 20:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked sockpuppet comments. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dan Merrony.

We do corrections, may not be notable enough but according to the few sourcs that are prominent publications. Let us not delete this page.

nent Isong records (talk) 20:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC) — Isong records (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Dan Merrony (talk · contribs). [reply]

Their are a few features from reputable sources from the country of the the subject but thier is evidence of online presence and the subject has been verified on several social media platforms hence consider editing the article that deleting it. Thanks Bobby Colhn. Dan Merrony (talk) 20:23, 21 November 2024 (UTC) — Dan Merrony (talk • contribs) is blocked for having used sockpuppets in this debate. [reply]

I think it should not be deleted, we should make some correction though Marvokayz (talk) 20:35, 21 November 2024 (UTC) — Marvokayz (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Dan Merrony (talk · contribs). [reply]

Delete - fails WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:GNG. All sources are either promo pieces or self-published. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:NMUSICIAN. I also cannot understand why the article creator created a mainspace article after already creating Draft:Waya Boy. I would also like the participation here of at least two other WP:SPA accounts to be noted. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 21:25, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find the MBU source that talks about this person, strikes me as a PR item. The rest of the sources used are youtube, a google search and music streaming sites. I'm not seeing notability for this person, appears PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 01:22, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above. If one must use sock puppet accounts, then maybe one’s arguments are poor? Bearian (talk) 17:26, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly fails WP:GNG even WP:BASIC. Baqi:) (talk) 16:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added valid sources to the article Yoweriip (talk) 18:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC) — Yoweriip (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 22:53, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Carter (darts player)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Darts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not prominent and WP:SIGCOV not proven - less than 100 Google Search results. Less than 10 Google News results and only one article with five sentences on him, rest are just mentions. Google Books seems to produce false positives. starship.paint (talk / cont) 06:43, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Starship's thorough search above demonstrates WP:SPORTSCRIT not met. LibStar (talk) 22:19, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was WP:SNOW keep as a clear WP:NPOL case. BD2412 T 15:09, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Usama Leghari

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another hyperlocal politician who fails at WP:NPOLITICIAN as a small town MP, fails at WP:BIO and WP:GNG. The article does not demonstrate or verify his notoriety. Even the reference are of low reliability Jinnllee90 (talk) 19:33, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:52, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 20:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Has presumed notability under WP:NPOL and Wikipedia:Notability (people)/Subnational politicians as a member of a major subnational assembly, since Pakistan is a federal polity. Results can easily be verified at https://ecp.gov.pk/general-elections-2024 (apparently the results are stored in Google Drive?) Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:44, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: According to WP:NSUBPOL members of the provincial and territorial assemblies, including the East Pakistan Provincial Assembly, are presumed notable.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as already mentioned, WP:NPOL is met. The circumstances of the nomination are also slightly suspicious. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is also developing whether or not the politician Gunnar Norberg makes sense for him to exist on Wikipedia, I suppose Usama Leghari, does not meet the parameters of permanence here. Jinnllee90 (talk) 23:45, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Difference being that Norberg was mayor of a town of 3,000 people, hardly notable comparatively, and was never a politician of a subnational party, while Leghari is. Procyon117 (talk) 13:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep member of a provincial parliament in federal system, satisfies WP:NPOL. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:01, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is an elected member of province assembly.--Gul Butt (talk) 18:29, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is MPA.--گل زیب (talk) 08:15, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:NPOL. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 09:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Satisfies WP:NPOL. Obi2canibe (talk) 18:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : Meets WP:NPOL...Ngrewal1 (talk) 01:50, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 22:54, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Darron Brown

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Darts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:28, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:28, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:28, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After doing a search it appears that are a few sources that list him as a darts player and provide some stats but nothing to show notability or provide WP:SIGCOV. Grahaml35 (talk) 02:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no notable achievements nor significant coverage. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 16:55, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I see no real claim to notability here. Plasticwonder (talk) 22:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 22:54, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gerry Haywood

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Darts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks significant success in the sport. Upon his death, Darts Weekly (page 13) says all of this about his career: ex-England international ... reached the quarter-finals of the 1983 British Professional. Only 1 Google News result and less than 30 Google Books results which are either false positives or mere mentions, so WP:SIGCOV not established via these avenues. starship.paint (talk / cont) 10:07, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Starship's thorough searches demonstrate that WP:SPORTSCRIT is not met. LibStar (talk) 23:22, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 22:55, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Porter

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Darts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT do not appear to be met. In general terms, the only sources I can find are directory-style entries like this (which appear to exist for every darts player that ever played in any tournament - and doesn't represent in-depth/biographical of the subject themselves). In terms of the "claims to notability" in the text (reputedly won the Irish Masters and Kent Masters in early 2000s), I can find no sources of any kind to support this. (When the article was created it seemed to be based entirely on a scan of one page of a brochure (a form of match program?) published by/for the organisers of the 2006 BDO World Darts Championship. Even if this program were still available (and it doesn't seem to be online or in any library anywhere), a directory-style entry in a single tournament program also likely wouldn't represent in-depth of significant coverage.) Note: While I'd personally like to be able to propose redirection (as WP:ATD-R), I cannot conceive of an appropriate target... Guliolopez (talk) 14:29, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only source provided is a darts brochure. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 06:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 22:55, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bellman's Cave

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No WP:SIGCOV. No reliable sources, and my WP:BEFORE didn't find any. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 19:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The best that I can find is an article in a web site of abandoned locations and this, which is a kind of tourist guide. The remainder that I found had copied the WP article. Nothing comes up that is a reliable source. I don't know if it would make sense to link to either of these from the entry in the List of caves in Gibraltar. None of the caves there have references. Lamona (talk) 02:55, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above. However, for the record, a travel guide can be a reliable source when independent of the place, for examples, Michelin guides or Lonely Planet. Bearian (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Bourguignon

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Suspected hoax. No information found under the name Jean Bourguignon or Jean-Jules Bourguignon. Creator did no other work beyond adding him to a list of inventors. Also likely not the first person to invent the first remote control toy car or radio alarm clock as those histories are reasonably well documented and have no mention of him. Cannot find sources for the claimed medal from the Salon des Inventeurs either. Article has been unreferenced since its creation in December 2007 and was originally tagged as such in March 2008, with the date updated in March 2011. Kazamzam (talk) 19:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete absent any sources. The English credits him with the "the first perpetual movement watch" and the Dutch with the first "solar-powered" watch. Apparent hoax. Mrfoogles (talk) 19:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Belgium. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't find anything in .be sources about an inventor, there's a comic illustrator [1] with the same name, but much younger... I don't see sources that would let us keep this. Unsure if it's a hoax, but it doesn't meet GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 01:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V. The name of probably three persons comes up on Googling. This person was probably a cartoonist who “invented” Rube Goldberg machines. It’s not a hoax so much as a joke. Bearian (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of caves in Gibraltar. asilvering (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Catalan Bay Cave

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I see no evidence of notability. Unlike many caves in this area, it isn't an archeological site, and I couldn't find any wp:sigcov Kingsmasher678 (talk) 18:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per above - there are two sources in the stub now, and I can find the Cave on at least three “olde time” maps, but arguably it’s not significant enough. Bearian (talk) 18:07, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of caves in Gibraltar where it is already listed. Lacks WP:SIGCOV to establish WP:GNG, 3 Google Books results but they seem to be mentions, should be enough for a redirect Less than 25 Google News results, most seem to be Wikipedia or mentions, or a map or a blog. Less than 40 Google Search results, not prominent. starship.paint (talk / cont) 09:48, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bearian and Kingsmasher678: - how about redirect, instead of delete? starship.paint (talk / cont) 09:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Good by me. Redirect.
  
  Kingsmasher678 (talk) 18:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per starship.paint is a reasonable WP:ATD. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect is fine. Bearian (talk) 13:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 22:57, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024–25 Montenegrin Women's League

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested draftification. Entirely unsourced, and a WP:BEFORE search turned up little. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 18:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Football. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 18:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:22, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Isolated editions of women's competitions rarely have WP:GNG on their own. Svartner (talk) 23:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Svartner. The level of women's football is low, resulting in significant coverage. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:42, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to FC Hajvalia. asilvering (talk) 22:57, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FFK National Educational Camp

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested draftification. Not well sourced, and a WP:BEFORE search turned up little. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 18:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Kosovo. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 18:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to FC Hajvalia – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 23:04, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 17:42, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Upper Rock Nature Reserve. asilvering (talk) 22:58, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

George's Bottom Cave

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Merge to Upper Rock Nature Reserve. Create a new section there for Tina's Fissure, this cave, and Levant Cave. Not notable independently, and only found coverage from blogs or passing coverage. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 18:18, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 18:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: has one paragraph of coverage, found here: https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/20769321/upper-rock-nature-reserve-a-management-and-action-plan. Not enough to justify an independent article, should still be merged. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 18:36, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Gibraltar Nature Reserve (new name of Upper Rock Nature Reserve). Exists but lacks WP:SIGCOV. Not prominent, less than 40 Google Search results. Less than 20 Google News results, but many are from Wikipedia, or are maps, or is a blog, leaving this. Then, zero Google Books results. starship.paint (talk / cont) 06:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge seems fine to me, but the "deletion rationale" just begins with a bolded merge. There is a separate WP:MERGE process for merge discussions. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:08, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ each to its corresponding decade article. Owen× ☎ 09:08, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1993 in Croatian television

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced for years, but someone cared enough to attempt to draftify it, so a PROD nomination might be questionable.

I'm going to try to do a "bundled" AfD here in a moment, nominating different year in Croatian television. Wish me luck, and I'd appreciate your patience if I mess up. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 17:35, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Croatia. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 17:35, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've also nominated the following articles, for the same reason as stated in the original nomination:

1971 in Croatian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1972 in Croatian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1973 in Croatian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1974 in Croatian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1975 in Croatian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1976 in Croatian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1977 in Croatian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1978 in Croatian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1979 in Croatian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1980 in Croatian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1982 in Croatian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1983 in Croatian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1985 in Croatian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1989 in Croatian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1994 in Croatian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2001 in Croatian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2002 in Croatian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 18:23, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just a note that 1994 in Croatian television has been redirected to a merged page due to a discussion I was unaware of. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 21:22, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@I dream of horses, If me moving them to draft space is the only reason to not "PROD" (simplified deletion?), should I blank redirect the others to the merged pages as User: Hey man im josh suggested? Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 21:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to decades – These have mostly already been merged into decades, because they are nearly empty, or completely empty, but the combined decades were enough for a stub. I moved them to draft space as I merged them, but User: Hey man im josh moved them back to main space because they were too old to draftify. Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 21:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Industrial Metal Brain I was going to agree to withdraw my nomination if you did this, but then a power outage happened, and I then enjoyed a few hours of being off the computer. courtesy ping to Hey man im josh. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 03:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another reason to redirect instead of delete, even for the empty pages like 1994 in Croatian television, is that there's a template {{Years in TV by country}} that links to the years, for most of the other countries the individual years are enough for a page. Ireland is the only one with pages for the decades, but they're just lists of years, e.g. 1970s television in Ireland… actually 1970s in Irish television. Maybe it's worth checking other word orders for the other countries), but decade lists are probably not worth making for the others. Simplest option is to redirect the years few countries that are combined in decades. Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 04:33, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And just to explain my hesitance to nominate these articles for a PROD deletion: PROD deletion is designed for abandoned articles, and these certainly weren't abandoned, as evidence by your draftification. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 03:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry, I misunderstood how draft space works. Josh explained on my talk page, before that I didn't know there are time limits on drafts. I thought moving them to draft space was the right thing to do with the scrappy stubs that are not enough for a page, for if somebody wanted to expand them years later. Redirects to the merged page seem like the right option for what I was trying to do? Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 06:18, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Industrial Metal Brain Right, you seem to be redirecting, so I'm wondering if Hey man im josh will note my withdrawing of the nominations? I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 08:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on Liz's reply, I think we're going to just let this one play out with the, hopefully, inevitable result of redirecting to decade articles. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, totally fine you didn't know, that happens. That's why I monitor draftifications, to help make people aware of it :) Hey man im josh (talk) 13:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:19, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I dream of horses, I have reverted the articles that were changed to Redirects which was improper after this AFD discussion was started. The editor can come here and argue for Redirection if that is the outcome they seek. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:56, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz Normally, I agree with your AfD decisions. I actually also agree with not redirecting a page nominated for AfD most of the time. With this specific decision, though, it appears like you're just doing procedures for procedures sake, and I have concerns that this is not in compliance with the fifth pillar. It just seems like there's a snowballs chance of Hell of any other outcome than "redirect" happening, which is why I'm offering to withdraw the nomination, something I'm normally allowed to do. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 19:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz That's what I did, above, I thought we came to the conclusion that this is what should be done? Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 20:12, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I redirected one before the nominator responded – there were two discussions happening at the same time in different places, one here and one on my talk page, I was following the advice from my talk page – but I left the notice above the redirect and I think I waited before doing the rest of the list. Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 21:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Industrial Metal Brain Liz sometimes takes a while to respond to messages, but they have popped up on my watchlist, so should reply to us shortly. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 01:53, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I dream of horses, I'm sorry, I don't see the urgency of closing this AFD early. If articles that are subject to an open AFD discussion are moved to draft space or turned into a redirect, those moves are always reverted. Most likely, participants will argue for a Redirect here and that's how the discussion will be closed. I don't believe in bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake but I also don't understand closing an open AFD early when there might be interested editors out there who want to participate in this discussion. Is 7 days of discussion such a big ask? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz It isn't so much that 7 days is a big ask; it's more that I foresee any other outcome other than "redirect to the merged articles." I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 02:32, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at some other ways to tidy it up, but they don't work. e.g. I can't find any matching lists from other countries that were part of Yugoslavia to combine with by broader space instead of broader time. There are good articles (Television in Croatia, List of Croatian films of the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, and List of Croatian films of the 1980s), indicating there's probably enough media in that time and place to have a list per decade. So combining the existing stubs by decade – like the films – is the best option, with the redirects to link with other regions that have lists for every year. Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 03:11, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to decades articles, which Industrial Metal Brain has been working at. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to each relevant decade article as suggested. I’m wondering about how these were created, but I’m going to assume good faith. Bearian (talk) 18:15, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearian They were created almost 20 years ago by someone who has since been blocked. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 19:21, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@I dream of horses: I wouldn't call 2015 "almost 20 years ago". jlwoodwa (talk) 05:27, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jlwoodwa My bad. I could've sworn there was an article made in 2006. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 06:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to decades articles per all above.4meter4 (talk) 03:43, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 22:59, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Calaway

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

before search doesn't bring up much. Most searches mention her in articles only as the ex-wife of The Undertaker. Should probably be either deleted or merged to The Undertaker's page. Was also merged in 2007 after a discussion. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^{(my edits)} 17:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Wrestling. CptViraj (talk) 17:45, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:33, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article uses unreliable sources, except for TheHistoryOfWWF which just hosts recaps of TV shows. Besides being Mark Calaway's ex-wife, she did make a handful of onscreen appearances with him during The Invasion storyline. It was a relatively minor role in the scheme of things, if they could not find sufficient sources in 2007 then I do not think we will have any better luck this time. Her connection to The Undertaker (onscreen and offscreen) doesn't make her notable, WP:NOTINHERITED.LM2000 (talk) 20:36, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this borders on BLP1E; she was involved in one WWE storyline because of her husband, but is otherwise low-profile and not the subject of substantial coverage. I have no opinion on a redirect to The Undertaker. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV. She had some TV appearances but not enough for passing as a notable person or a WWE persona. --Mann Mann (talk) 05:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ACP Rail International

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not finding sources which get us over the WP:NCORP hurdle. Finding some trivial mentions (e.g. [2]). TWL only gives [3], which is not enough for an article. Of the sources in the article: I can't find the Ruggia source, the Dineen source is a trivial mention, and the third one is a press release from the company itself.

It also appears this article was created by a paid editor – User:Acprail. Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 16:22, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 16:22, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 16:42, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of football clubs in Pakistan. Owen× ☎ 15:42, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eleven Star FC

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Club only existed for one season and does not have WP:SIGCOV Demt1298 (talk) 15:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Pakistan. Demt1298 (talk) 15:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of football clubs in Pakistan – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 23:05, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 17:41, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above.--Gul Butt (talk) 18:37, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of football clubs in Pakistan.--گل زیب (talk) 08:21, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, this article along with Chand FC Layyah and Mardan Blue Star FC which just got nominated for deletion. I did these articles as the upcoming Pakistan Premier League is expected to only include club sides for the first time in history, as previously the sport was dominated by government entities, but honestly these clubs in particular have been a headache to find more sources. Didn't expect that, I think best for now would be redirect to List of football clubs in Pakistan. JayFT047 (talk) 00:07, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of football clubs in Pakistan: As per WP:ATD Wikibear47 (talk) 15:41, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Super Bowl starting quarterbacks. Owen× ☎ 15:37, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Super Bowl losing quarterbacks

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Topic is not independently notable, essentially trivia, and is already included in List of Super Bowl starting quarterbacks. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and American football. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Super Bowl starting quarterbacks. This is an unnecessary content fork as everything is already covered in the target article. Also fails WP:NLIST with no coverage specifically of losing QBs as a group (only thing I could find was the an AI-generated Statmuse page already in the article). Frank Anchor 14:48, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I get what you mean it's just a lot of the data provided in my article, other than the list itself, is nowhere on wikipedia. None of the winning percentages, data, nothing. While it may be considered trivia in your eyes, so is most of the list of super bowl starting quarterbacks. It is also simply interesting data for some football fanatics. It may not necessarily need deletion either, and could go as an insertion into the list of super Bowl quarterbacks article, not in it's entirety, but somewhat. Take the interesting statistics section, add some other undefeated QB's in there, and voila. RSWC65onYT (talk) 15:15, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Duplicative and unnecessary content fork. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Super Bowl starting quarterbacks. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 17:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Super Bowl starting quarterbacks as a valid WP:ATD. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Super Bowl starting quarterbacks.
Delete or redirect per above. Cbl62 (talk) 03:56, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Super Bowl starting quarterbacks as a valid WP:ATD. Already covered elsewhere, per all above. Ejgreen77 (talk) 12:41, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 15:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Koosha Toofan

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. Nothing on a before. No indication of significance. Been on the cat:nn since 2010. scope_creep^Talk 14:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Bodybuilding, and California. Shellwood (talk) 15:35, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The article has no claim of importance, and the references do not demonstrate notability. The World Physique magazine interview is the best source, and I'm not sure it should be counted at all for GNG; the other sources are worse. A Google search finds nothing other than his personal website (with a biography that differs substantially from this one) and Wikipedia derivatives. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Falls WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Ampil ^{(Ταικ • Cοnτribυτιοns)} 13:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was draftify‎ as a sensible ATD. Owen× ☎ 15:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Trump Economic Miracle

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Book's been out for a month, no independent reviews or coverage beyond summarizing what the book says. I would suggest redirection to the author but there are two, so that's out. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Politics. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is draftify not an option? There may be opportunities to improve this article in the future if independent reviews are forthcoming. Reconrabbit 02:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, with books like this if it hasn't gotten reviews by now I would be surprised if it did, so at that point it just just seems like a backdoor deletion. But sure if that's the route people want to go. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Draftify - not separately notable or not detailed enough. There might be another article suitable to merge it in to though.
Sushidude21! (talk) 07:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I would have said "draftify", but I can see a back and forth on perspectives of this book. It's been talked about by news talking heads, as far back as September. In fact, the closer to the election, the more we heard about how Trump's pro-growth policies "fueled unprecedented growth and prosperity". The news media viewed this book according to however they already viewed Trump. That aspect is unlikely to change. But I'm not sure Wikipedia needs an article on it. — Maile (talk) 03:07, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can I try to save it by "draftifying" it? Or is it better to put the small amount of text into the Publications section of one (or both) of the authors? --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:51, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since you wrote it I think you could add it to one or both of the authors. If reviews happen then it would be notable, but otherwise, I'm not sure if draftifying would do much. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:55, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. No objection to someone working on this in draft space provided it go through draft review successfully before being moved back to main space. Reviews in business journals (by that I mean academic ones we can use not trade journals) might still happen, as those kind of reviews often appear later. It may end up dying in draft space if refs can’t be located and that is ok.4meter4 (talk) 03:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Economics, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was draftify‎. Owen× ☎ 15:32, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Aryna Sabalenka tennis season

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Her season is still at least a few weeks away, and as of now, the article is very barebones with no real information or sources. Liam Korda 13:34, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Tennis, Belarus and Lists. Liam Korda 13:45, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify for now per WP:CRYSTALBALL, this tennis season is likely to be a notable one, but we can't possibly know for sure until the season actually begins. Iffy★Chat -- 14:36, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Can be moved back to mainspace when first match ~~close to starting~~ underway. Procyon117 (talk) 16:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No proven evidence shown the notability of the topic. Pure WP:CRYSTALBALL stuff. Unnamelessness (talk) 11:42, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - as others have said, we need for the season to at least start before we can determine whether it's going to be notable. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:41, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dratify as above. After her first tournament we can re-add. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:02, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. Glad to see the substantial improvement. (non-admin closure)‎ AusLondonder (talk) 16:29, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Man with Two Faces (1975 film)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unsourced since creation 16 years ago, fails WP:V. Virtually no content either. Prod removed without any improvement or attempt at sourcing on the basis of "Coverage in the Korean language" - yet the Korean article is nearly identical to this article and sourcing consists of two deadlinks, one to a database. Does not appear to meet WP:NFP which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". AusLondonder (talk) 12:36, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and South Korea. AusLondonder (talk) 12:36, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'll see if someone at the Korea WikiProject can search for sourcing. Offhand I am seeing the film mentioned quite a bit in Korean language sourcing (thank you Google Translate!) so there's a good possibility that the movie is notable. Not a guarantee, mind you, which is why I want someone more fluent in the language to search. If this is notable, then I have a feeling that the sources may be ones I can't use a translation app on. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:01, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone familiar with Korean and Korean language sources can take a look, I saw the film mentioned here, here. I don't know if the sources are usable or not - I'm running into the aforementioned issue. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Copying over from my post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea#Help finding sources?:
Here's some coverage in sources considered reliable by WP:WikiProject Korea/Reliable sources:

https://www.kmdb.or.kr/story/74/1663 - review/retrospective on the film
https://www.kmdb.or.kr/story/10/5427 - discusses the Frankenstein narrative of the film
https://www.hankookilbo.com/News/Read/201909201405360300 - Article discussing 100 years of Korean cinema, director Lee Yong-min's love of horror films and how this film is the Korean adaptation of Frankenstein
https://www.newsis.com/view/NISX20140227_0012753607 - Film included in an exhibition by the Korean Film Archive highlighting the best villains in Korean films
https://www.kmdb.or.kr/story/154/4714 - Same as above, an exhibition on "Korea's greatest villains" by the Korean Film Archive
https://www.yna.co.kr/view/AKR20140227189300005 - Similar coverage as above
https://www.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2014/02/27/2014022704170.html - Similar coverage as above
https://www.yna.co.kr/view/AKR20061228186000041 - Restoration of the film by Korean Film Archive (among other films) over a three year period, then exhibited by the Archive
https://www.yna.co.kr/view/AKR20180517077700005 - In this article an author (Kwak Jae-sik) is discussing how he watches old/"failed" films and uses this film for writing inspiration
https://www.hani.co.kr/arti/culture/movie/181500.html - Another article on the film's restoration by Korean Film Archive
https://www.seoul.co.kr/news/society/science-news/2018/05/16/20180516023004 - This is one of those "sci-fi is becoming reality" pieces about "memories by injection" - snails are taught sensory responses, then their RNA is extracted, and implanted into other snails, and they find the sensory responses transfer. The article references that it is similar to a plot point in the film where the memories of a corpse are transplanted into the main character.

Easily enough coverage there, and its inclusion in the Korean Film Archive means it meets criteria #4 in WP:NFO at the very least, and likely #2 as well for being selected as a film that portrays the greatest Korean villains, and additionally meets #2 by being screened in a festival by the Archive in 2006 and 2014. RachelTensions (talk) 16:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you RachelTensions! I'll try and flesh out the article later with these sources! ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The title is actually something that might need to be changed. I can't see where this was ever officially released to the English speaking market. Several sites have this listed by the article name, but none of them ever give any info about when or where it was released. IMDb mentions a UK and US release, but anyone can edit and add info to that site so it's hardly a RS. So far the strongest source that could be used to back up the English title is AllMovie, which does list an editor rating - but no release info other than the original 1975 date for South Korea. That points towards a release likely existing, but it's still not great.

I have a sneaking suspicion that this might be an unofficial title, as I was able to find some bootleg sites for the movie. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:58, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: sources presented by RachelTensions prove notability requirements are met. Thank you! -Mushy Yank. 21:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would note that a lot of the sources cited above, although reliable, are IMO a bit shaky from a WP:SIGCOV standpoint - that is, it is not clear to me that they address the topic sufficiently directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. But overall I think there is ample coverage to meet the GNG. And just to add to the pile from the scholarly side of things, this article has about 5 pages of critical analysis, and this one has a bit more than that. I think there is ample material for an article here. -- Visviva (talk) 03:56, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was ‎ keep, withdrawn with the only remaining delete opinion struck. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beverly J. Stoeltje

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPROF. No coverage. Been on the cat:nn list for 10 years and no indication of being notable. scope_creep^Talk 12:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 13:34, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, leaning keep. GS citations look moderate, in what must be relatively low-citation fields. There's detailed coverage of some of her research in JSTOR 48653856 and possibly in JSTOR j.ctt175758p.23, JSTOR j.ctt9qhh6t.9, JSTOR 10.2307/j.ctv1jf2cpk.13, JSTOR j.ctt24hz78.12, JSTOR 10.2307/jj.14491732.10 & JSTOR /j.ctt80pj4.6. (all books that are preview only) plus some short reviews of her edited books, but with 147 JSTOR hits it's hard to see which might be significant. Not seeing a pressing need to delete. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Her CV is here. (There is mention of a second authored book in preparation in 2022, but I can't find evidence of publication.) There is also an appreciation of her work by a colleague, at her retirement, and an oral history interview with some indept introductory material from a different university. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also three or four pages of discussion on her work in Sara L. Spurgeon. Exploding the Western: Myths of Empire on the Postmodern Frontier (only first page is previewable). Espresso Addict (talk) 19:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a lot in Olaf Hoerschelmann. Rules of the Game: Quiz Shows And American Culture. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~. I'm seeing nontrivial GS citations, but even in a low citation field I'm looking for a little stronger record on the highest cited publications. I believe this to be a "book field", but I see at most one authored book, and I didn't find any reviews. I do not put much weight on particular citations to her work. The article is a well put-together stub, and I agree about no pressing need to delete, but I'm also not yet seeing a pass of any notability criteria. Watching in case better evidence of notability emerges. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Russ Woodroofe Are you sure this is a book field? There seem to be several flourishing academic journals in this area. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that many fields where the main routes to impact flow through books do have academic journals. I could be wrong here about the field, but I am still seeing citations that look scant to establish notability, and nothing else that passes the average professor test. FWIW, subject's CV is here [4]. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Striking !vote; still looks a bit marginal to me, but I certainly don't feel strongly enough to block withdrawal of nomination. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:12, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes criteria 1 WP:NACADEMIC. She does have a large number of citations for a small citation field. In addition to the sources found by Espresso Addict, her research is cited in several literature reviews as important in google books. These include: "Feminist Approaches to Folklore" in American Folk Lore: An Encyclopedia, Fieldwork and the Self: Changing Research Styles in Southeast Asia, "Festivals" in The SAGE International Encyclopedia of Music and Culture, "Folklore" in The American Midwest: An Interpretive Encyclopedia, and "Feminist Perspectives in Folklore Scholarship" in Folklore: An Encyclopedia of Beliefs, Customs, Tales, Music, and Art, Second Edition.. She also referenced in the chapters "Assessing Tourism Goals" in I'm Feeling the Blues Right Now: Blues Tourism and the Mississippi Delta, "Modernity in Folklore" in The Passeggiata and Popular Culture in an Italian Town: Folklore and the Performance of Modernity, "The Present" in Charrería Mexicana: An Equestrian Folk Tradition, "His Life and Work" in The Legacy of Américo Paredes. The "Overview Essay" in Encyclopedia of Women's Folklore and Folklife describes her as one of the "official foremothers of feminist folkloristics" on page lxvi.4meter4 (talk) 20:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it is more than borderline notable now. More so even. Generally if there is a oral history interview, which i've seen with other folk, e.g. holocaust survivors, which I didn't see here when I did the before- it tends to show a level of importance within a certain group within society that indicates notability which is not always visible and that combined with the various book editions that have been surfaced and the citation count, is more than enough I think. I think if everybody is ok with it, I can withdraw this. scope_creep^Talk 20:53, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination Withdrawn The subject is notable. scope_creep^Talk 21:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 15:30, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of molecules by year of discovery

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is highly inaccurate and misleading as of right now. It is also rather impossible to make a list of molecules by year of discovery, even if it were to be constrained to the 19th century. The contents of the theories of molecules, discovery of aromaticity, etc. is much better described elsewhere. Perhaps should at least be merged into History of molecular theory. Pygos (talk) 11:44, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Science, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a very hard list to handle. The current list contains a very strange and random selection of molecules. Given the millions of known molecules (Chemspider contains 100,000,000 ) our list needs to be selective. We could make it a navigational list of wiki-notable molecules, but we have a truly enormous number of articles on individual molecules, and most readers will be searching by criteria other than year-of-discovery, so it would be a pretty unhelpful list. We could more usefully make it a curated list of molecules whose discovery was a historical stepping-stone, such as benzene. But to do that, we need a proper discussion of the inclusion-criteria before we make the list. So for the moment, delete the list, but if anyone wants a list, start a discussion somewhere about how to do it. I would have no objection to converting my keep to a blank-and-discuss if such things exist. I don't think we're allowed to draftify as the current list is too old. Elemimele (talk) 15:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Is the creator of this list seriously suggesting that Umeclidinium bromide is the only significant molecule discovered in the 21s century? More generally "a very strange and random selection of molecules" sums it up. Athel cb (talk) 16:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete There were already users who agreed via prod, prod2, and the creator's redirection that that is an unworkable list. So it's rather absurd that an RFD with three delete votes resulted in this being restored instead just to waste time rediscussing the obvious. Reywas92^Talk 16:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost infinitely expandable list, and anyway, important milestones in the history of chemistry can be better organized than just a database-dump of molecules ordered by year of discovery. That's just trivia. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. If there was some was some cutoff for discovery of molecules pre year X to represent early pioneering discoveries, that might be interesting and manageable, but that would really need sources carving out a category for us. As it stands though, this wouldn't satisfy WP:NLIST. KoA (talk) 22:55, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 15:28, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Warrick Cycles

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:COMPANY. I couldn't find any reliable sources for this English company. (Not to be confused with Warrick Cycles of Springfield, Massachusetts, which is only a little bit less unnotable.) Clarityfiend (talk) 10:40, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The 2009 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warrick cycles resulted in a dubious keep. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:COMPANY. Very little has changed since the last nomination and I suspect the user who originally created the article also has some involvement with the company. Ajf773 (talk) 18:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is now entirely unsourced. Run of the mill company, not notable. The article is 10 years old and can't even say when the company was founded. -OXYLYPSE (talk) 11:29, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The company was founded in 1877 according to https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Metal_Finishing_Journal/5scmAAAAMAAJ?gbpv=1 but coverage there is probably not significant. https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Electrical_Engineer/aog5AQAAMAAJ?gbpv=1 mentions John Warrick but not the company. https://1914warrick.wordpress.com/ seems to be self-published by an author cited in two articles (Army Cyclist Corps and Military bicycle) so may be reliable but possibly not useful for notability. Peter James (talk) 01:34, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 11:09, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mahesh Kothe

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject has only held non-notable positions, such the mayor and corporator of a small city. A BEFORE search returns results related to election preparations, which are routine and lack significant independent coverage. The article fails to meet WP:GNG as well as WP:POLITICIAN. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 10:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, and India. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 10:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This had been mentioned in the original version, which was edited by other contributors.

Premises:

1) The person in question(Mahesh Kothe) was a mayor 2) The Number of IT parks in India and rest of the world are in limited numbers. In India the number stands at 65.(Refer: https://stpi.in/en/about-stpi)

The first IT park in Solapur was brought up by Shri Mahesh Kothe, which is one of those (65 IT parks in India).

The aforementioned fact was mentioned in the original article.

Additional Read: https://www.thebridgechronicle.com/news/maharashtra/solapur-get-it-park-5000-jobs-expected-29124

Thank you Mohit Gandmal (talk) 10:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable position elected politician, fails to meet WP:NPOL, I guess the article is created because of the current Maharasthra legislative elections, the subject fails to meet WP:GNG as no multiple secondary reliable sources providing in-depth coverages. GrabUp - Talk 10:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi GrabUP,

Thank you for the comment.

This was anticipated. But the Maharashtra elections have concluded yesterday, that's 20th-Nov-2024. And the article was published post that.

Hence, the given article will have zero impact on the election which has already ended.

Thank you,

Mohit Mohit Gandmal (talk) 10:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Times of India being one of the most reliable source of information which satisfies all the parameters of WP:GNG i.e Presumed, Significant coverage, Reliable, Sources, Independent of the subject, following additional links have been added to the article from TOI:

1) https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kolhapur/ncp-cautiousover-entry-ofsena-leaderfrom-solapur/articleshow/80176107.cms

2) https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kolhapur/solapur-sena-rebel-expelled-congress-leader-quits/articleshow/71547888.cms

3) https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/sharad-pawar-tweets-about-ex-sena-leader-joining-ncp-deletes-later/articleshow/80175184.cms

4) https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/specials/assembly-elections-2014/maharashtra-news/shindes-old-aide-is-pranitis-key-opponent-in-solapur/articleshow/44376337.cms

5) https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/telugu-vote-power-1-crore-influence-in-maharashtra-assembly-elections/articleshow/114631840.cms

6) https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/aurangabad/bjp-sena-fails-predict-damage-caused-by-rebels/articleshow/71767635.cms

Please refer to the aforementioned links to find additional information on the subject, before making your decision. Mohit Gandmal (talk) 15:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The other people who hold the notable position only as mayor & still have a Wikipedia are as follows:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malti_Rai

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priya_Rajan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadwal_Vijayalakshmi

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pramila_Pandey

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firhad_Hakim

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinod_Agarwal

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junaid_Azim_Mattu

The person is question - Shri Mahesh Kothe, apart from being a mayor has also initiated one of most important project that is Solapur IT park.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Delhi, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. I cannot find subject's work as corporator and politician that has made any significant impact and achievement to be worthy of notice. RangersRus (talk) 14:12, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Request you to please explain, how a contribution as follows is not worthy of notice:

Shri Mahesh Kothe, apart from being a mayor has also initiated one of most important project which is Solapur IT park.

Read more about it at - https://www.thebridgechronicle.com/news/maharashtra/solapur-get-it-park-5000-jobs-expected-29124 Mohit Gandmal (talk) 14:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Times of India being one of the most reliable source of information which satisfies all the parameters of WP:GNG i.e Presumed, Significant coverage, Reliable, Sources, Independent of the subject, following additional links have been added to the article from TOI:

1) https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kolhapur/ncp-cautiousover-entry-ofsena-leaderfrom-solapur/articleshow/80176107.cms

2) https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kolhapur/solapur-sena-rebel-expelled-congress-leader-quits/articleshow/71547888.cms

3) https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/sharad-pawar-tweets-about-ex-sena-leader-joining-ncp-deletes-later/articleshow/80175184.cms

4) https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/specials/assembly-elections-2014/maharashtra-news/shindes-old-aide-is-pranitis-key-opponent-in-solapur/articleshow/44376337.cms

5) https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/telugu-vote-power-1-crore-influence-in-maharashtra-assembly-elections/articleshow/114631840.cms

6) https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/aurangabad/bjp-sena-fails-predict-damage-caused-by-rebels/articleshow/71767635.cms

Please refer to the aforementioned links to find additional information on the subject, before making your decision. Mohit Gandmal (talk) 15:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: He is a non-notable local politician who does not satisfy WP:GNG and/or WP:NPOL criteria. Best wishes, BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 17:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Moderator,

The following information has been added to the page.

Times of India being one of the most reliable source of information which satisfies all the parameters of WP:GNG i.e Presumed, Significant coverage, Reliable, Sources, Independent of the subject, following additional links have been added to the article from TOI:
1) https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kolhapur/ncp-cautiousover-entry-ofsena-leaderfrom-solapur/articleshow/80176107.cms

2) https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kolhapur/solapur-sena-rebel-expelled-congress-leader-quits/articleshow/71547888.cms

3) https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/sharad-pawar-tweets-about-ex-sena-leader-joining-ncp-deletes-later/articleshow/80175184.cms

4) https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/specials/assembly-elections-2014/maharashtra-news/shindes-old-aide-is-pranitis-key-opponent-in-solapur/articleshow/44376337.cms

5) https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/telugu-vote-power-1-crore-influence-in-maharashtra-assembly-elections/articleshow/114631840.cms

6) https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/aurangabad/bjp-sena-fails-predict-damage-caused-by-rebels/articleshow/71767635.cms

Please refer to the aforementioned links to find additional information on the subject, before making your decision. Mohit Gandmal (talk) 15:13, 21

Mohit Gandmal (talk) 17:48, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not equal "notable". And please stop repeating yourself, we saw your comment the first time. Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 05:27, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does not satisfy - WP:JUSTAPOLICY or WP:JUSTA or WP:VAGUEWAVE or WP:VAGUEWAVES - deletion discussions are not "votes". They are discussions with the goal of determining consensus. Rather than merely writing "Original research", or "Does not meet WP:Verifiability", consider writing a more detailed summary, e.g. "Original research: the main claim of subject's notability ('Future Nobel Prize') is unattributed speculation" or "Does not meet WP:Verifiability – only sources cited are blogs and chat forum posts". Providing specific reasons why the subject may be original research or improperly sourced gives other editors an opportunity to supply sources that better underpin the claims made in the article. Mohit Gandmal (talk) 06:42, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Based on the references reviewed, the subject currently qualifies as a local political figure, which does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for politicians (WP:NPOL), The individual has not demonstrated a broad impact or influence beyond local politics, which is a prerequisite for meeting Wikipedia’s specific notability guidelines for politicians, 2024 Maharashtra Assembly Elections: The subject participated in the ongoing elections, but the results are yet to be announced. If the individual wins and achieves significant influence or recognition, they might become notable under Wikipedia’s guidelines. General Notability Criteria (WP:GNG): The subject does not currently meet Wikipedia's general notability requirements, which typically involve substantial coverage in reliable, independent sources. Baqi:) (talk) 09:12, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 11:07, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Free Software and Open Source Symposium

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. No reliable secondary sources covered this event. ThatIPEditor ^{Talk · Contribs} 09:42, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Software, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:48, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I conducted a WP: BEFORE and reached the same conclusion as the nominator. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. Based entirely on primary sources and no hits in google news. LibStar (talk) 01:26, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq at the 1996 Summer Paralympics

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Iraq isn't mentioned in [5] which shows the number of participants per country in the 1996 paralympics. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Olympics and Iraq. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like this is a WP:HOAX as it never happened.4meter4 (talk) 09:43, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~Redirect~~ ~~to 1996 Summer Paralympics as ATD.~~ It's not a hoax, Iraq competed. Quite at what level/to what degree seems unsure, but there are definitely listings of Iraqi athletes on the offical website. The article itself is unreferenced and our coverage is so little/obscure that there's no point keeping an article. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alexandermcnabb, every Iraq match shown there is a DNS (which I assume stands for 'Did not Show'). No team member is shown for any of them. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, MPGuy2824, I meant to mention that. I, too, assume DNS is Did not Show and wondered if there was some other story here (hard to find because the world was invented in 1996, as we all know). But they were certainly supposed to be there - hence my hedge of 'quite at what level/to what degree seems unsure'!!! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:25, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
they were certainly supposed to be there Agreed, since matches seem to have been set with their athletes/teams.

Not sure about converting it to a redirect though, since it would be surprising to readers to be taken to a page with no mention. Hopefully, someone else comes up with a better idea. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:33, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I added a paragraph to explain reason of no participation of Iraqi delegation with sources added. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 10:35, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense and fills that tiny lacuna I suspected all along. Not sure whether we're in keep or merge territory here, though. MPGuy2824 ??? Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:25, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding the sources, Faycal. "Delete" is definitely out of the question now. I'm leaning towards a weak Keep. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changed my vote accordingly, as I completely agree. 1996 for the win! Withdrawn by nom? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:43, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Iraq at the Paralympics. Utterly non-notable on its own, created solely to fill a gap in a series, but reasonable to include as a part of a larger topic. Geschichte (talk) 14:40, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I do so disagree here. There's even a guideline which gives us signally clear guidance: "Significant coverage is likely to exist for nations participating at an individual Summer or Winter Olympic or Paralympic Games, e.g., United States at the 2008 Summer Olympics or Great Britain at the 2002 Winter Paralympics" WP:NOLYMPICS. It's just as notable if they DON'T compete, IMHO. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A guideline that pertains to "nations participating at" is in no way "clear" guidance towards "nations not participating". Geschichte (talk) 15:01, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not terribly well reasoned. They were meant to participate, they pulled out. That's highly unusual. Their participation was therefore more newsworthy/noteworthy than if they had participated. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:06, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:NOLYMPICS which suggests we should have articles on all teams to participate at the Olympics and Paralympics. We have never in the history of Wikipedia ruled against having one of these articles – i.e. we have a complete set of these and it should stay complete, and having an entire detailed paragraph about one event in the main article is very undue. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The set would be equally complete even if it's all contained under one article title, i.e. several years are merged. Geschichte (talk) 15:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify‎. This is a WP:IAR speedy close to meet the needs of the creating editor who has realised their error in moving this to mainspace too early. (non-admin closure) 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:58, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eleanna Finokalioti (Eleanna Fin)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disputed draftification. WP:DRAFTOBJECT means this is the next step unless someone chooses to perform WP:HEY. This BLP lacks sufficient references of the quality required in order to reman here. I am not persuaded that Finokalioti passes WP:NACTOR nor WP:NSINGER, nor WP:BIO as presented. This may simply be WP:TOOSOON. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:19, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Women, Music, Television, Theatre, Greece, and United States of America. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:19, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please write me in simple engish without wiki links if possible what is the problem now?? When I submitted the article I got a notice for IMDb links...so I replace ALL these links with others...What do I have to do now to keep my article on wiki air?? Georgelgreco (talk) 09:40, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Georgelgreco, That information is on your user talk page. This is really not the venue to write you an instruction manual. This venue is for the discussion of retention or deletion of the article. I, and doubtless others, will discuss this with you thereunto here. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, let me tell you this....Eleanna Finokalioti is a Greek actress, singer and performer who works for 5 years in USA with Artistic O-1B visa. O-1B is for: Individuals with an extraordinary ability in the arts or extraordinary achievement in motion picture or television industry. For 5 years USA country believes that she has the right to stay and work as a performer here...So for USA immigration services she is eligible to stay and present her talent and her work...and for Wikipedia she is not eligible to present her work here?? Sorry this is unfair..... Georgelgreco (talk) 10:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And also she is an Actor's Equity Union member....I have the proof of that and proofs for whatever I say Georgelgreco (talk) 10:15, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Georgelgreco In simple English, you created this situation by moving the draft to Mainspace without it being ready to be an article. Awaiting a further review would have been wiser, when all this would have been worked out with you. I have no objection to a consensus based draftification, but it cannot now be done without consensus. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I think I understand what you mean..When I finished with major changes about IMDb links, I had to resend the article for reviewing and not for publishing...BUT I press publish because I read in that page this phrase: If you believe you resolve the problem then press publish... And if you read and check the new links, I replace everything, so I resolved the problem, I think.. Georgelgreco (talk) 10:36, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Georgelgreco Then I suggest you create a new line here, and used boldface font for the word "Draftify" and state in ordinary fine "Published by my own error" 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:42, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. Published by my own error Georgelgreco (talk) 10:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG; WP:NACTOR; WP:NSINGER per nom. Created by SPA. No objection to draftification, but doubt a) more sources are to be found (I didn't find 'em, in any case) and b) whether this won't just get bunged straight back into mainspace. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The creating editor has stated that they published this by their own error, and requested draftification. As proposer I am about to initiate a WP:IAR speedy close to meet the reasonable needs of the creating editor. I am content if editors with greater knowledge than mine choose to revert this action. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Ajemian

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable former professional lacrosse player. The closest to WP:SIGCOV I found was a blurb from high school. JTtheOG (talk) 23:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Connecticut, and Massachusetts. JTtheOG (talk) 23:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC.4meter4 (talk) 00:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 09:19, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete‎. as a g11. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:02, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lagos Oriental Hotel

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ref-bombed advert for a non-notable hotel. Nothing to indicate notability. PamD 09:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Travel and tourism, and Nigeria. PamD 09:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:58, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Bauers

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this former professional lacrosse player. JTtheOG (talk) 23:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Connecticut, and Virginia. JTtheOG (talk) 23:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC. I found nothing in a WP:BEFORE with WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 00:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 09:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:SPORTCRIT. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:43, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Alrich

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this former professional lacrosse player. JTtheOG (talk) 23:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Delaware, and Pennsylvania. JTtheOG (talk) 23:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 09:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Left 4 Dead (franchise). Owen× ☎ 15:28, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Purple Francis

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural nomination per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 13#Purple francis. Article is about a joke character, which was BLARed in 2021 because of a lack of notability. CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Games. CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

disagree with the stated blar reasoning. seemed more like an editor not liking it, despite at least two others having agreed before that it did meet the gng

that aside, keep. for better or worse (definitely worse), purple francis does have those reliable sources on him. still no prejudice against draftifying or userifying, since its prose might be a little undercooked for mainspace, but i don't think it's anything that can't be done in around an hour and 9 minutes cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 12:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Left 4 Dead (franchise). This is a very small Stub primarily filled with a lot of information about Purple Francis's in-universe information. There is very little coverage showing Purple Francis's actual impact and popularity that can't be just be summarized in one sentence. It warrants a mention, but it's not necessary for this to have a separate article. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 12:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

also fair, to be honest cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 13:18, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the franchise article. Coverage is not SUSTAINED and the incident could be covered with a sentence or two in the franchise article, if that. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Pokelego999. The coverage is trivial, and doesn't have significant reception or analysis. I'd also support a redirect, but merge is a good compromise, per WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – Per above. Svartner (talk) 05:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: or merge per above. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 16:34, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - per WP:MERGEREASON - there's not much to be said and what little there is, is best covered in the patent article. Sergecross73 msg me 16:46, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per all. This is missing sustained WP:SIGCOV but can be covered at the parent article per WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:55, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Seatter

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMOTORSPORT as a driver who has competed in low-level domestic and regional motorsport championships with limited to no success. Article reads as a promotional piece – name-dropping circuits raced at, fellow competitors and sponsors – and the user page of the original editor (User:Femaleracedriver) redirects to this article, indicating a WP:COI. Only two sources, one of which is a personal website, and an internet search reveals a lack of SIGCOV. MSportWiki (talk) 22:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Motorsport, Malaysia, and Sportspeople. MSportWiki (talk) 22:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMOTORSPORT and WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 02:58, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 09:07, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Tanzania Twenty20 International cricketers. ✗plicit 11:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kassim Nassoro

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to meet notability and significant coverage criteria. Shrug02 (talk) 17:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Tanzania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC. None of the sources have in-depth coverage of Nassoro. The article is mostly based on a cricket database which per the 2022 RFC is not considered substantial coverage toward notability.4meter4 (talk) 21:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 09:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Tanzania Twenty20 International cricketers as a valid WP:ATD that has been done for numerous other players who've played in minor T20I matches. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the nominator of this AFD I agree redirect is a good option also. Shrug02 (talk) 21:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Joseph2302. Gheus (talk) 08:09, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Tanzania Twenty20 International cricketers. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:49, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ally Kimote

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to meet notability and significant coverage criteria. Shrug02 (talk) 17:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Tanzania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the sources address the subject directly or in detail other than sports databases which have been deemed not relevant towards proving notability. Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC.4meter4 (talk) 21:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 09:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Tanzania Twenty20 International cricketers as WP:ATD exists. Gheus (talk) 08:08, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the nominator of this AFD I am happy to support redirect as suggested by @Gheus Shrug02 (talk) 15:06, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:01, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abhik Patwa

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to meet notability and significant coverage criteria. Shrug02 (talk) 17:26, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Tanzania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no significant coverage in secondary sources for this player. Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC.4meter4 (talk) 21:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 08:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG; WP:SPORTSBASIC no WP:SIGCOV, listings/routine fixtures only. What little MSM coverage there is, is short bios listing teams/fixtures. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:02, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rezza Gaznavi

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to meet notability and significant coverage criteria. Shrug02 (talk) 17:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Singapore. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC Bernie Clay Bear (talk) 00:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 08:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG; WP:SPORTSBASIC no WP:SIGCOV, listings/routine fixtures only. What little MSM coverage there is comprises match stats and short bios listing teams/fixtures. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:04, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sources listed do not provideWP:SIGCOV. After doing a search it appears that are a few sources that list him as a player and provide some stats but nothing to show notability. Grahaml35 (talk) 02:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:03, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aritra Dutta

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to meet notability and significant coverage criteria. Shrug02 (talk) 17:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Singapore. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC Bernie Clay Bear (talk) 00:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 08:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG; WP:SPORTSBASIC no WP:SIGCOV, listings/routine fixtures only. There's a professor Aritra Dutta but this ain't him. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:15, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aman Desai

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to meet notability and significant coverage criteria. Shrug02 (talk) 17:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Singapore. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC Bernie Clay Bear (talk) 00:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 08:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG; WP:SPORTSBASIC no WP:SIGCOV, listings/routine fixtures only, some match stats and short bios listing teams/fixtures. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:18, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:30, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yasim Murtaza

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to meet notability and significant coverage criteria. Shrug02 (talk) 17:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 08:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG; WP:SPORTSBASIC no WP:SIGCOV, listings/routine fixtures only. What little MSM coverage there is comprises match stats and short bios listing teams/fixtures. There would appear to be a lot of these very routine players with articles! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails NSPORT and SIGCOV to be kept as an article. Wikibear47 (talk) 15:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adil Mehmood

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to meet notability and significant coverage criteria. Shrug02 (talk) 17:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Hong Kong. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 08:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG; WP:SPORTSBASIC no WP:SIGCOV, listings/routine fixtures only. What little MSM coverage there is comprises match stats and short bios listing teams/fixtures. This could have been a batch nomination! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:52, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- My google search didn't show sources to defend this, would have voted for draft Chikwendummesonma (talk) 17:13, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Hong Kong Twenty20 International cricketers. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:49, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Coetzee

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to meet notability and significant coverage criteria. Shrug02 (talk) 17:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, South Africa, and Hong Kong. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 08:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG; WP:SPORTSBASIC no WP:SIGCOV, listings/routine fixtures only. What little MSM coverage there is comprises match stats and short bios listing teams/fixtures. Probably not the Martin Coetzee at University of Pretoria. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Hong Kong Twenty20 International cricketers per WP:ATD. Gheus (talk) 08:07, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the nominator of this AFD I am happy to support redirect as suggested by @Gheus Shrug02 (talk) 15:07, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Bahrain Twenty20 International cricketers. ✗plicit 00:08, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Majid (cricketer)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to meet notability and significant coverage criteria. Shrug02 (talk) 17:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, Pakistan, and Bahrain. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 08:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG; WP:SPORTSBASIC no WP:SIGCOV as Abdul Majid, Abdul Majid Abbasi or Abdul Abbasi, all of which he has been known as by various platforms. However, still all listings/routine fixtures/short bios listing teams/fixtures. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:58, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Bahrain Twenty20 International cricketers per WP:ATD. International cricketers are usually notable but if in-depth coverage doesn't exists then the consensus is we should redirect them to related lists. Gheus (talk) 08:06, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Bahrain Twenty20 International cricketers: As per WP:ATD Wikibear47 (talk) 15:40, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talla Ndao

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Having a career where he played 87 minutes in the Japanese leagues (22 minutes in the first, 22 in the second and 43 in the third), no notability is apparent. Quite the opposite, actually. How about the sources? It would require good sources for him to meet WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. The ja:wiki have some primary sources and a Gekisaka article that barely mentions him. web.ultra-soccer.jp have several pieces which is WP:ROUTINE coverage in my view. Geschichte (talk) 17:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Senegal, and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 08:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. asilvering (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Akshata Krishnamurthy

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Page does not seem to meet WP:NACADEMIC, reads more like a self-promotional page, and focuses more on what the subject's projects have achieved rather than the subject themselves. Tammy0507 (talk) 13:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Spaceflight, and India. Shellwood (talk) 13:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per half agreement with nom. Although we can rewrite the article, if NACADEMIC is not met, there is no point Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 15:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The subject could meet GNG and not PROF. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find it interesting when a user's first edit on Wikipedia is to nominate a page for deletion, as is the case here. DaffodilOcean (talk) 22:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree, it is rather strange. Noelle!!! (summon a demon or read smth) 19:32, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added Fortune India's Most Powerful Women List reference, and other interview references. Subject passes WP:GNG as there seem to be sufficient WP:RS. Shiv989 (talk)
Comment. I don't believe WP:PROF is met by citations; if one removes the heavily co-authored papers the highest cited on GS is 13. I am concerned that this nomination is brought by a new editor, and that a previous prod was made by another new editor. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Espresso Addict: And the article was created by a new editor as well. Your point being...? Tammy0507 (talk) 15:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's rare for new editors to find the deletion processes early in their career here. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe some of us are looking for a WP:CLEANSTART :) Tammy0507 (talk) 15:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - four of the sources are actually from one issue of Forbes India. Bearian (talk) 02:40, 17 November 2024 (UTCIpigott (talk) 13:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sufficient coverage to meet general notability. Probably much more in the Indian press.--Ipigott (talk) 13:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. We don't usually put so much weight on the kind of listicle coverage as in Forbes. Apart from that, I see only press releases, the subject's own articles, and early career awards. Looks WP:TOOSOON. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - might be worth noting coverage, mostly in Indian press - [6], [7],[8], [9], [10], [11], [12].. --Shiv989 (talk) 06:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the Economic Times article (which is, if you read it, admits to being basically a reproduction of the subject's Instagram page), and to a certain extent the News18 report, I would cast serious doubts on whether the cited sources are actually reliable sources. Tammy0507 (talk) 10:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I would like to remind editors what constitutes a reliable source and refer to WP:Reliable sources/News Organizations:

Human interest reporting is generally not as reliable as news reporting, and may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy (see Junk food news)

I do not see any source in this article and discussion that does not qualify as Human interest reporting. Tammy0507 (talk) 10:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 08:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 45 sources for a three-para article? Good grief. No, you're not getting a source analysis, but the sourcing is clearly (as has been noted extensively above) problematic. The awards are, not one of them, bluelinked. Fails WP:GNG - a lot of window dressing, clearly a talented individual, but we lack the substance required for notability. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article notes that the subject was the recipient of awards from the International Astronautical Federation the Zonta International Foundation, MIT, and NASA, which should satisfy the second condition of WP:ACADEMIC.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except none of those awards are significant, ie: bluelinked... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:40, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as noted above that subject meets WP:GNG with articles in Indian press including Mint reference that notes subject is the first Indian citizen to operate Mars rover. The article could use some cleanup. Removed some non-relevant references in article and stated reasoning. Nnev66 (talk) 14:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, subject meets WP:GNG and has notable coverage. I agree that the article needs cleanup. Noelle!!! (summon a demon or read smth) 19:31, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as noted above meets WP:GNG and also WP:ACADEMIC with Luigi G. Napolitano Award and publications. Referring to WP:ACADEMIC:

The criteria above are sometimes summed up as an "Average Professor Test": When judged against the average impact of a researcher in a given field, does this researcher stand out as clearly more notable or more accomplished?

The criteria, in practice, vary greatly by field and are determined by precedent and consensus. Also, this guideline sets the bar fairly low, which is natural; to a degree, academics live in the public arena, trying to influence others with their ideas. It is natural that successful ones should be considered notable.

Other academic profiles for precedence: Anita Sengupta, Mark Adler, Farah Alibay, Bibhusita Das, Katherine Aaslestad --Shiv989 (talk) 17:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fortune's listing is enough for me, and there's a lot more than just that. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, more on the basis of WP:GNG than WP:PROF. That sort of notability is not about whether she has the accomplishments to deserve the coverage she has been given; it is merely about what coverage there is and on how reliable and independent we take it to be. I place more credence in SSPI and in the Luigi G. Napolitano Award as being closer to the profession than, say, Fortune India, but regardless, I think there is enough coverage. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:37, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mysterious Particle (talk • contribs) 14:47, 25 November 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 11:06, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stu Megan

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SIGCOV. Some passing mentions in the ext links but not sufficient for a WP:BLP. No indication of significance. Been on the cat:nn list for 10 years. No updates. scope_creep^Talk 08:28, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 11:44, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, England, Canada, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with nom, fails WP:SIGCOV. Baqi:) (talk) 13:27, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if every sentence was cited (which it isn't) it is a rather unremarkable career that fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 03:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:BIO. There's little to no in-depth coverage of the subject in sources. Most of the articles content is unsourced and reads like a resume, while the mentioned sources provide only passing mentions, which is just not enough to establish notability. ZyphorianNexus (talk) 06:39, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Valid arguments on both sides, but consensus failing to materialize after over three weeks. Feel free to renominate in three months. Owen× ☎ 13:46, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aruba Mirza

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NACTOR. References are a mixture of not mentioning Mirza, passing mentions and interviews 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Pakistan. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article needs some serious cleanup. She's a noted participant in a notable show: https://tribune.com.pk/story/2437664/voters-declare-aruba-mirza-winner-of-tamasha-season-2 https://24newshd.tv/24-Sep-2023/fans-disapprove-of-aruba-mirza-s-victory-in-popular-tv-show-tamasha https://www.trendinginsocial.com/tamasha-season-2-winner/ Coverage about her private life also abounds. She does seem to be notable enough. (FWIW Various roles presented as lead/main in the articles about series she played in). Mushy Yank (talk) 19:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She has done both supporting and lead roles and in this source it is mentioned how she started her career also she appeared in Tamasha Season 2 and she won.(BeauSuzanne (talk) 22:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC))^[1]^[2][reply]
Comment - As a winner of a notable TV show I would say there "should" be significant coverage, but everything presented in the discussion with the exception of this has no byline and would be churnalism or otherwise unreliable. I also found some tabloid-type references about an engagement but those wouldn't be suitable for notability. Is there by chance an alternative spelling of the name I can use for search; or, any non-English sources that someone can point out that would be considered significant coverage?--CNMall41 (talk) 22:39, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I will check in other languages news usually in Urdu.(BeauSuzanne (talk) 10:11, 8 November 2024 (UTC))[reply]

References

^ "Aruba Mirza calls herself 'Papa ki pari'". ARY News. 24 July 2023.
^ "Voters declare Aruba Mirza winner of 'Tamasha Season 2'". The Express Tribune.

Draftify: For the time being until more reliable sources are added. Wikibear47 (talk) 07:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article includes sufficient references to meet GNG. Notable sources, such as The News (Ruling the Charts), ARY News (Papa Ki Pari, Kahani Kahan Se Shuru Hui), The News (Rang Mahal Final Episode), and The Express Tribune, provides substantial coverage of the subject's career, media appearances, TV roles, and win in a popular show. Additionally, other brief mentions in various sources contribute to satisfying the WP:SIGCOV.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 15:25, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Clearly passes Wp:GNG and Wp:NACTOR. Subject has done multiple significant roles in notable Tv shows.

Zuck28 (talk) 15:52, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable name in drama industry and passes notability criteria. Referencing is enough to establish that, Urdu news items are also from mainstream Urdu media. Muneebll (talk) 10:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Despite the request, no coverage has been presented that show significant coverage. I see keep votes stating "clearly" notable or making the claim of being a "notable name" or having significant roles but not supported by references required by WP:NACTOR. Regardless of roles, there needs to be significant coverage to show it. Notability is not inherent. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NACTOR is met. Based on the provided references, each offers moderate coverage, and the combined use of multiple independent sources can effectively establish notability. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 09:09, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel otherwise which is why I say significant coverage has not been presented. Of the five presented as evidence in this AfD (note it is four as one is a duplicate), all fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA with the exception of this which I would question as reliable based on no listed editorial guidelines and advertising which includes "article publishing." I am open to review anything else someone wants to provide. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. While there are numerous sources available online covering her career, TV appearances, and roles, individually, they may not meet the threshold for significant coverage. However, when considered collectively, they do. As for your concern about paid content, none of the sources are affiliated with WP:NEWSORGINDIA, as they all come from Pakistani media, not Indian outlets (not saying that your indications are wrong or right). — MimsMENTOR ^talk 06:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is sometimes confusion about the name NEWSORGINDIA (which I think needs to be changed by the way), but there are several editors who agree it applies to media in that region as a whole, not just the country. Regardless, we can call it churnalism which is essentially the same thing. Reprinted press releases, paid media, etc. It doesn't have to be paid to fall under that guideline. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Churnalism" can be addressed separately if you want to mention it in that context, and that's fine. However, NEWSORGINDIA still applies as a guideline for Indian media, even if editors agree it's intended for the broader subcontinental region (which I believe is what you were referring to). That said, I don’t see a valid reason to delete this article under WP:NEXIST. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 09:16, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel I can no longer discuss as it is going in circles. Let me be clear......I agree with you on NEXIST. The problem is that I have searched for suitable sources and they do not exist. The ones presented by keep votes are not reliable or not significant. We don't just assume sources must exists if we have searched for and been unable to locate them. --CNMall41 (talk) 09:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly passes criteria 1 of WP:NACTOR. Even if WP:GNG is not met, that doesn't matter as the sources prove an WP:SNG is met. SNGs are a perfectly valid pathway to establishing notability under policy.4meter4 (talk) 19:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is incorrect. WP:ANYBIO says people are presumed notable when there is significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources, but that people are only likely to be notable if they meet the following standards, of which NACTOR is one. That is, NACTOR creates a refutable likelihood of notability. The guideline specifically says meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. What really matters is the secondary sources from which the page can be written. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:04, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep has a clear majority but these aren't very strong arguments. Keep folks: what sources do you find the most convincing? If there are strong sources in Urdu, can we see them?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep: Again, deletion is not cleanup; subject passes C1 WP:Anybio per the award and WP:Nactor. Kaizenify (talk) 13:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as, per the relist comments, and per CNMall41, the sourcing is just not there. ANYBIO C1 does not apply - this is not a significant award. NACTOR criterion 1 looks stronger, but meeting NACTOR criterion 1 does not guarantee the subject should be included, per the SNG guidelines themselves. As no one has been able to provide suitable sourcing from which a page could be written, there is no reason to keep this page. I would be happy with a redirect if anyone can suggest something suitable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom and CNMall41. Fails to clear notability and GNG too. Keep !votes aren't convincing enough and the sources provided do not make it past SIGCOV and GNG threshold. — Benison (Beni · talk) 04:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Based upon the multiple significant roles that this individual has played in various television series (such as Saba in Mera Haq; Sehrish in Babul Ka Angna; and Hajra in Rang Mahal, which was mentioned by the BBC) it looks like this individual passes WP:NACTOR#1 (i.e. The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions). WP:N notes that a subject is presumed to merit an article when It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG), provided that the article is not excluded under WP:NOT. "Or" does not mean "and"; meeting a subject-specific notability guideline is sufficient to be considered notable.
Those who support deletion have argued that this individual does not meet the WP:GNG. While this is not necessary, as explained above, it is also plain wrong to insist that she does not meet it. There is plenty of coverage of this individual under her Urdu name (عروبہ مرزا) that is available online from a quick search. This includes multiple news organizations covering the breaking off of her engagement (Dawn, Geo), some coverage of her childhood (Ary News), and some coverage of her decision to enter the entertainment industry (Ary News).
This individual would be notable alone based upon her passing WP:NACTOR. But that she also passes WP:GNG makes it crystal clear that we should keep this article.
— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:28, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing like responding on the last day of the last relist! Could you cite a couple of the sources you say meet GNG please? I'd like to review those as if we have actual sources (thus far lacking throughout the whole discussion) I would certainly revise my !vote. Note to closer please could close be delayed long enough to allow this review. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:07, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lords and margraves of Bergen op Zoom

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Uncited article on an unnotable office. -Samoht27 (talk) 00:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Politics, Royalty and nobility, and Netherlands. -Samoht27 (talk) 00:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bergen op Zoom#History (provided it is properly sourced). That article mentions the margravate. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge indeed. Title abolished in 1795 is a fascinating footnote and barely more. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the article is too large to merge into the Bergen op Zoom history section, the result would be too unbalanced. I have provided three references. Bergen op Zoom is very proud of its history as margraviate. The palace of the margraves is a wonderful museum. The article on the list of Lords and Margraves is very interesting and useful.Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 17:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Neither article is even remotely large. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Size is a relative concept. The history section in the Bergen op Zoom article is four paragraphs, 320 words. Very short. The Lords and margraves article is 200 words. Large, relative to the short history section. Merge the two and the result is unbalanced, in my opinion. That´s all. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 01:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Given there is a museum dedicated to the margraves at Bergen op Zoom, it is a historically notable topic.4meter4 (talk) 00:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I presume there was no effort made to establish the nature of the 'musuem dedicated to the margraves at Bergen op Zoom'. It is the Markiezenhof, the oldest city palace in the Netherlands and it is not 'dedicated to the margraves'. And its existence and purpose doesn't make the list of lords and margraves of that place any more notable, properly referenced, germane or necessary. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:54, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Markiezenhof is not exactly a museum about the margraves, it is a museum named after the margraves. Still, the three Stijlkamers, three rooms of the permanent exhibit, are dedicated to Margrave Maria Henriette de la Tour d´Auvergne. So, a part of the museum is dedicated to the margraves, in particular to one of them. Anyway, I have added one more reference, a 170 page book specifically about the Lords and margraves, to further strengthen my case that the topic deserves a standalone article. Best, Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 02:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - European noble titles / families are notable when adequately sourced, and this one is. It's a bit too large to merge comfortably to the Bergen op Zoom article. Ingratis (talk) 07:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 04:59, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Feel that reasons stated by keep voters above are just so. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 08:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kilbil St Joseph's High School

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Only a primary source provided. 4 google news hits, none indepth. LibStar (talk) 00:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Maharashtra. LibStar (talk) 00:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was unable to locate any sources. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 00:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:42, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete - Doesn't establish notability. Draftify if you can find other better sources, else delete
Sushidude21! (talk) 07:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lot Fire Records

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable business. Spam from blocked sock farm who built a walled garden. Lacks independent coverage about it, lots of PR placement which don't satisfy sourcing criterea, lacking independence. Wikipedia is not a PR platform. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page that just reproduces content from the main page:

duffbeerforme (talk) 03:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to Bash Luks and copy edit/trim for encyclopedic tone. While I can understand the need to cleanup after a sock editor with a coi, the referencing in this case is not bad. The articles use multiple reliable news sources from Uganda and Ghana where Bash Luks and/or Lot Fire Records are the primary subject. The Kampala Dispatch and Tower Post are reputable newspapers. News Ghana is a reputable news portal. Capital Radio (ie 91.3 Capital FM) is also reputable. There is certainly enough reliable secondary coverage to support an article on Bash Luks per WP:BASIC/WP:GNG. At this point I think Lot Fire Records would be better covered in that article because I don't think the record label as yet passes WP:NCORP. The list is small, and doesn't need to be a stand alone article.4meter4 (talk) 03:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and Uganda. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sourced to press releases, the whole enterprise, its artists, its CEO are not notable. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:40, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass WP:NCORP from a quick WP:BEFORE search I've conducted. @4meter4:, FYI, the target you've suggested had been deleted, so you may wish to modify your !vote. Graywalls (talk) 15:23, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather abstain at this point. In general I find the way Ghana topics are covered on wikipedia frustrating; largely because we don't accept their media as reliable which means they get systematically deleted even when there are sources in that country's media publications. There must be some better way to handle these other than giving in to WP:SYSTEMICBIAS.4meter4 (talk) 15:28, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:13, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Culturenet Cymru

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Culturenet Cymru was established as a company within the National Library of Wales for the purpose of creating a body that Welsh Government could fund outside of the NLW sponsorship arrangement, with a remit to develop online resources. The company was based in NLW, all the directors and officers were NLW staff, and the employees were subject to NLW regulations. The arrangement was wound up in 2016 and all of the projects were transferred directly into NLW. It was never independently notable, generating a couple of news articles (that I cannot now find) only when one employee, whose contract was terminated, alleged he had fixed an online poll they ran. That coverage did not explore the nature of the company, and my recollection is that the news media were directed to NLW itself. As such this is not notable and does not meet WP:NCORP. I was going to redirect to the NLW page but it is not mentioned there, and I do not feel a mention of the company is due there. Thus a redirect is not possible (no mention on the target page). I am therefore nominating here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, Companies, Popular culture, and Internet. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it isn't notable enough for a stand-alone article, as I cannot find any significant coverage in independent sources. Redirect to 100 Welsh Heroes, its one notable project, where Culturenet Cymbru is briefly described (and is an article that has survived AfD). Schazjmd (talk) 21:02, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I searched for information about this company on every search engine but found nothing. I don’t believe it is notable or meets Wikipedia's notability criteria for companies (WP:NCORP). Baqi:) (talk) 08:49, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-46508394 JD John M. Turner (talk) 22:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to National Library of Wales per WP:ATD or keep for passing WP:SIGCOV. A basic WP:BEFORE search shows plenty of coverage in google books such as [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], etc This was a notable project and the content would be a reasonable subsection in the NLW article. I also see no issue with leaving it as a stand alone article. Either way, deletion or a redirect to 100 Welsh Heroes is not the answer as the organization was involved in multiple large digitization projects of note; some of which are the primary subject of journal articles viewable in this Google Scholar search. 4meter4 (talk) 16:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SIGCOV must be more than a mention. Indeed, Culturenet must meet WP:NORG as the appropriate SNG. The guidance on SIGCOV may be found under WP:ORGDEPTH which says, inter alia,
Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization.
Your references 2-6 are all passing mentions. "Culturenet's gathering the jewels" or a caption for an image, or "now available on..." are all passing mentions. None of these are SIGCOV by any margin, let alone ORGDEPTH. The first reference is longer. It has a paragraph about what CultureNet was remitted to do. It is not, to my mind, coverage at ORGDEPTH, but that one is moot in any case. The paragraph was written by CyMAL: Museums Archives and Libraries Wales for the Welsh Affairs Committee Evidence, included in a section on the National Library. CyMAL was a division of Welsh Government, and Welsh Government sponsor NLW. CyMAL funded Culturenet's GTJ and other such projects. This, then, is a primary source and not independent. It is Welsh Government telling the Welsh Affairs committee about the work it is doing. To meet WP:NORG (or WP:GNG for that matter), multiple sources must have significant coverage, and be independent, reliable secondary sources. See WP:SIRS. None of these meet these criteria. Redirecting to 100 Welsh Heroes per Schazjmd would be more sensible as a WP:ATD. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the coverage is trivial. There are multiple journal articles with the organization in the title of the article in google scholar. These in combination with the book sources (of which I just randomly listed the first books in the search; but there were pages of book hits) would pass WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT. The scope of the Culturenet Cymru makes 100 Welsh Heroes a bad merge target; although it would be ok as a redirect. Doing that however, would lose encyclopedic information of value which would be WP:DUEWEIGHT in the article on the National Library of Wales. Given your argument that company has essentially been folded into the NLW in your deletion nomination, the NLW is clearly the better target for both a merge and a redirect.4meter4 (talk) 17:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the coverage is trivial. To take just one of these as an example, we read: "All-Wales examples include Culturenet Cymru's Gathering the Jewels (20,000-plus items) and the National Library's Digital Mirror (0.5m-plus items)..." (Osmond, 2006). Now compare that text to the relevant section of ORGDEPTH I quote above. This is not significant coverage. Not under GNG and certainly not under NORG. And they are all at this level. Maybe the problem here is that your "randomly listed" selection is where the BEFORE was not carried out. Why do you think I am unfamiliar with that literature? But where is the deep or significant coverage about Culturenet? Where is the coverage that extends well beyond brief mentions? The information from which an article can be written? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because cherry picking the weakest source of the bunch, and misrepresenting the quoted text in that source by taking it out of paragraph/section context is a balanced and fair way to do source analysis 🙄.4meter4 (talk) 19:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 20:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As a (sometimes controversial) body funded by government, it should stay. Deb (talk) 16:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was a company, not an assembly sponsored public body. It needs to pass WP:NORG. Do you have independent secondary sources about the controversy? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was a government funded and run initiative, it was never a private institution/company. Read the sources.4meter4 (talk) 23:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are incorrect. Please read the nom. statement again. It was constituted as a company.[19] It was specifically arranged so that it was not run by the Welsh Government, and although it got project funding from the Government, this was in the manner that other companies are awarded project funding and it was not a sponsorship arrangement. So again, WP:NORG is the SNG. What sources do we have that meet WP:ORGDEPTH? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A company run and funded by the government. I think you are splitting hairs.4meter4 (talk) 15:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was not run by the government. It was run by company employees under directorrship of employees of the National Library, which is itself not run by the government (although it has a Government remit letter). I am not splitting hairs. The whole point was to set it up as a company because it was not an arm of Government. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:WIKILAWYERING as it relates to following the spirit of policies.4meter4 (talk) 18:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are going to have to unpack this for me. What exactly are you arguing for here? That this company should not be subjected to the need to have significant coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources (WP:SIRS)? Why? because it was funded primarily through Government project funding? Note that WP:NORG says

This page is to help determine whether an organization (commercial or otherwise)...is a valid subject for a separate Wikipedia article dedicated solely to that organization.

The guidelines surely and evidently therefore apply to Culturenet Cymru PLC. It seems to me that if you are arguing (incorrectly in my view) that this was nothing but an arm of governemnt, it is even less notable. Its notability for a standalone page surely must derive from its separation from the National Library (whose staff were the company officers). It is either not notable because it was nothing but an arm of the library, or it may be notable as a standalone organisation - if it meets NORG. Which is it? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that in this particular case, this specific company should be treated the way we would treat any government run and government funded program because in any way that essentially matters that's what this company was. It was created through government legislation, it was founded using tax payer dollars, and it was managed by a government institution. Trying to treat it like a normal for profit private business under WP:ORG policy doesn't seem to meet the spirit of our principals; particularly when the product being produced was for free public consumption within a national library. In otherwords, demanding WP:ORGCRIT here seems WP:POINTY.4meter4 (talk) 21:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We do treat all such organisations this way See NORG "Commercial or otherwise". Note that I have throughout said NORG and not NCORP. Profit is not the issue. The lack of sources about the organisation is the issue. It needs to meet ORGCRIT because that is the relevant SNG as it would be for, say, a Government funded school. And I don't think you have read what POINTY means. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT comments aren't helpful. WP:ORGCRIT was created as a means of critiquing the notability of for-profit business like Google or Microsoft or any other clearly for-profit business. It wasn't designed to handle weird cases like this which involve government managing bodies and products which are being created for free public consumption in a weird blend of public-private partnership. This company's goals better allign with the goals of a non-profit and the scrutiny we developed to support the WP:NOTPROMO model for-profit companies under WP:ORGCRIT are not appropriately applied in the context of an organization that was essentially created to do large scale digitization projects and research in the context of a national library that has free access to people in Wales. At some point WP:COMMONSENSE has to come into play and a consideration of the spirit of our policies at the WP:Five Pillars. You are welcome to keep pushing WP:ORGCRIT, but I think its WP:POINTY to do so per WP:5P5 and not beneficial to the project.4meter4 (talk) 22:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At this point you have accused me of cherry picking, misrepresentation, wikilawyering, Ididnthearthat and pointiness (twice). It is clear you are not going to assume good faith. I'll leave it there with you. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well you have done some of those things. Cherry picking (be honest you picked the worst source out of the ones listed to highlight), misrepresentation (you did take that one source out of context of the paragraph), wikilawyering (you are being pedantic on a particular policy that wasn't designed to handle a company of this kind), Ididnthearthat (you were ignoring what I was saying and repeating arguments after every editors comments that disagreed) and pointiness (you are trying to make a point with ORGCRIT after it was pointed out to why it doesn't fit well in this context). I don't think you are intentionally trying to be disruptive, and that you are contributing with good intent and in the best way you know how. I do think you have lost perspective, and are not listening well to what other editors are saying.4meter4 (talk) 23:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing extensive coverage. A search in ["Culturenet Cymru" -wikipedia site:.bbc.com] yielded little. As well as 2 google news hits. and passing mentions in google books. Fails WP:ORG. There is no inherent notability in being government funded. This source and this found by 4meter are 1 line mentions and not SIGCOV. and I can't find specific reference in this. This one is 2 lines of mention in a whole book. LibStar (talk) 00:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LibStar Would you support a merge to National Library of Wales per WP:ATD?4meter4 (talk) 00:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No LibStar (talk) 03:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on merge/redirect to National Library of Wales as an WP:ATD?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:02, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom & LibStar, and i'm not really seeing a good place in the NLW article to merge it to. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 21:15, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:12, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gunnar Norberg

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Yet another hyperlocal politician in the walled garden created to boost Carmel-by-theSea who fails WP:NPOLITICIAN as mayor of a tiny town, fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. The article is filled with fluff and neither demonstrates nor verifies notability. Even the NYT reference is a passing mention. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and California. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not seeing notability, this is more of a play-by-play of the person's life, career and death. Sources are pretty much is discussed in the nomination. I don't find anything esle. Oaktree b (talk) 18:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is another article on a non-notable mayor of Carmel-by-the-Sea, a town of about 3,000 people. The sourcing is hyper-local or sourced to their own autobiography. The article is part of what some editors have called a "walled garden", the purpose of which was boosterism and WP:PROMO. Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN, WP:GNG and WP:NBUSINESSPERSON. Netherzone (talk) 19:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Oaktree b, I don't know if you saw that someone removed a lot of the content and sources before the article was nominated for AfD. I don't know if they were right or wrong to do so, but it is impossible to evaluate the article without this material, and so I think it should be kept in until someone explains why they though the deleted sources were not acceptable even for non-controversial material. I have restored some of it pending the result of this AfD. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's quite a bit more in the article now, but I'm not sure if it makes this person notable. Being in the War, acting, politician. Seems like an interesting life, but this still feels like an extended CV, nothing really for a wiki article. Oaktree b (talk) 23:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ssilvers, this is part of a "walled garden" of Carmel promo, this ANI will provide more context:[20] (final ANI discussion), which led to the creator's site ban.The editor had a long history of COI and undisclosed paid-editing, poor sourcing, self-published sources, COI sources, and deliberately misrepresenting sources to make subjects appear notable. Additionally, there was LOUTsocking. The editor who deleted some of the material, u|Left guide|Left guide, was working on clean up efforts removing hyperlocal sourcing, paid-COI sourcing, self-published sources, and questionable sources. These were not some random drive-by deletions. The problems went on for many years before the editor was community blocked/banned. Netherzone (talk) 00:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I just read the thread over at ANI, what a situation that was. Oaktree b (talk) 02:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The deletions made to the article left it ungrammatical and were done very poorly, leaving a highly misleading picture of the article for reviewers at AfD. Let people review the article with the sources, and we'll see what the result of the AfD really is. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Outlands_in_the_Eighty_Acres#History: mentioned there; merge necessary content if possible. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Re dir can always be created later, but deleting it first gives a level of protection against surreptitious resurrection by COI editors, a real concern with articles around Carmel-by-the-Sea topic demonstrated by multiple block evasion attempts by a certain editor. Graywalls (talk) 06:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG, which is all that counts here, not the state of the article as it currently stands, nor how it got here. - SchroCat (talk) 08:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with immediately preceding comment. Tim riley talk 09:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, leaning delete If notability is not met, it is clearly a problem- However. Even if GNG is met, if WP:BIO fails, it violates the BLP policy. Passing mention references aren't that acceptable either. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 13:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

Keep - a perfectly notable subject Jack1956 (talk) 21:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:48, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I’m confused: does the article even claim that he was notable? He was the mayor of a small town. In general, that does not establish notability on Wikipedia. Llajwa (talk) 19:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Critically fails WP:NPOL, WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to pass WP:ANYBIO, WP:BASIC, and WP:SIGCOV. There are multiple independent book sources from reliable academic publishers, and newspaper articles with in-depth significant coverage. I'm not seeing a valid policy based rationale for deletion.4meter4 (talk) 18:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have "meets GNG" and "fails GNG" as arguments. Can we get a source table? And what's this about violating BLP policy?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 21:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:58, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:48, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sikhareswar Mandir, Baldiabandha, Dhenkanal, Odisha

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Exists in draftspace as well. Totally unsourced, and a WP:BEFORE search failed. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 21:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hinduism and Odisha. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 21:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A shrine of Lord Sikhareswar in village Baldiabandha ia a well-known temple .Though not much publicity in newspapers/social media is there. Over the years, this religious institution has come up as a centre for Saivite worship.It is a green temple in serene natural environment in Dhenkanal.I earnestly submit to you consider this stub article,a part of subaltern history of this region.

Warm regards and gratitude JAMKUM (talk) 07:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Google News reveals nothing same goes with books and the article is written like an advert. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 00:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also I Draftify this because of that. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 00:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There’s something going on, and it’s impossible to determine if it’s being done in good faith (so we need to WP:AGF). IP editors are leaving comments on the talk page of the article and AfD begging for this article to be kept. I can understand one or two IP editors doing this, editing logged out out of principle is A Thing, but I’ve never seen this many IP editors do this. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 16:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Undoubtedly there are people who are connected in some way to this temple that don't want the article deleted. It happens.4meter4 (talk) 01:44, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4 Perhaps! It's stopped, regardless. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 02:18, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. In doing a WP:BEFORE search, I located many sources which had SIGCOV of the Sikhareswar Mandir in Guwahati, Assam but could locate no sources about the temple of the same name in Baldiabandha, Dhenkanal, Odisha. I searched under all three names separately just in case and got zero hits. It's possible there are sources in the Odia language (the official language of that part of India) but that is beyond my skill set. Without evidence on this temple, and with the url links in the article not covering the temple, we have no choice but to delete.4meter4 (talk) 01:44, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's give it one more week. IP editors: you need to provide sources if you want this to be kept (see WP:42), or offer an WP:ATD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:58, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sir,

Thanks for benign consideration. JAMKUM (talk) 10:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clearly fails WP:SIGCOV.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 16:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Sandstein 06:20, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitri Zakharov (footballer, born 2000)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG (WP:NBASIC).--Анатолий Росдашин (talk) 02:45, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Draftify - Draftify until better sources are found.
Sushidude21! (talk) 07:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV/WP:SPORTSBASIC. I found coverage on a Russian scientist and a Russian television personality/broadcaster of the same name. Admittedly I am not a Russian speaker so my BEFORE may not have turned up something pertinent to notability on this particular Dmitri Zakharov. If something changes, ping me. Best.4meter4 (talk) 03:17, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – if someone shows interest in improving. I'm not opposed to deleting it. Svartner (talk) 23:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:00, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diahnne Abbott

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable actress. Mainly famous for being the first wife of Robert De Niro, but notability is not inherited. Natg 19 (talk) 02:15, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and United States of America. Natg 19 (talk) 02:15, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:SIGCOV. She has an encyclopedia entry in Encyclopedia of African American Actresses in Film and Television, see page 4, and there are many other sources in this Internet Archive search; including another biographical entry in Halliwell's who's who in the movies which is a film encyclopedia. Under WP:5P1 we cover the same topics found in specialized encyclopedias, and since two published specialized encyclopedia cover this person we should too. Additionally, she had more significant roles in The King of Comedy and Love Streams, and she has a featured on screen song number in the film New York, New York, performing "Honeysuckle Rose (song)" (also appearing on the soundtrack album). She arguably passes WP:NACTRESS for multiple notable roles.4meter4 (talk) 02:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article passes WP:SIGCOV. I have noting more to add to above comment. Gharouni^Talk 02:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable actress. Moondragon21 (talk) 23:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:SIGCOV with the entry in Encyclopedia of African American Actresses in Film and Television, and other significant movie roles. --Shiv989 (talk) 20:06, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:59, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Euro-Mediterranean Center on Climate Change

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. No in-depth significant coverage of the organization. C F A 💬 20:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Environment, and Italy. C F A 💬 20:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am the head communication office at the Euro-Mediterranean Center on Climate Change (CMCC). The Center is an international research center that collaborates in many international projects and initiatives, such as

-- the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that have selected us as the Focal point for Italy

-- the European Environment Agency for which we coordinate the European Topic Centre on Climate Change Aaptation and LULUCF (ETC CA)

-- we provide climate predictions and forecasts for Copernicus Climate Services and for Copernicus Marine Service

-- we have research collaborations with leading research centers around the world, the latest one is with Princeton University High Meadows Environmental Institute

We will add this information, other international relevant activities, and related sources to the page. I hope this is enough to maintain the article on Wikipedia. Buonocoremauro (talk) 10:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Buonocoremauro. Thanks for that info. Please take a look at the message to you and User:Manusantagata79 I am about to leave on the talk page of the article about some guidelines English Wikipedia has about Wikipedia:Conflict of interest which might seem strange to academics or might be different on Italian Wikipedia. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

Keep Although I would not be able to cite all the content I have added a couple of cites and should be able to find more if needed to show notability Chidgk1 (talk) 07:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources you added help with WP:NCORP notability. C F A 💬 15:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK I have now added ^[1]

I don’t speak Italian but hopefully someone from the Italy project can take a look Chidgk1 (talk) 16:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me, but that's one source. We'll need more than one to show notability. C F A 💬 16:06, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Il meglio della scienza del clima è al Cmcc". la Repubblica (in Italian). 2023-05-06. Retrieved 2024-11-11.

Weak keep I’m seeing a large number of climate science books and journal articles citing data/research generated by the CMCC internationally in examining EBSCOE, JSTOR, google books etc. There a lot of passing mentions of the organization in that kind of literature. While technically not enough to meet WP:NCORP this is a case where I think the topic is encyclopedic based on its broad scholarly impact along the reasoning at WP:NACADEMIC. Lastly, it’s possible there are foreign language sources not easily found in searching in English as this organization does research globally. I grant you that this is not the strongest argument, but international scope is covered in our WP:SNG at WP:NONPROFIT. I'm not really seeing any benefit in deleting an article on a government funded/founded climate research organization attached to multiple Italian universities.4meter4 (talk) 17:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NONPROFIT says Organizations are usually notable if ... The scope of their activities is national or international in scale. and The organization has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization., but if this is an IAR keep I'm not going to debate it. C F A 💬 00:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 20:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:07, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. And noting that this article can't be a fork of White matter hyperintensity as that page is a Redirect, not an article. As for this closure, a more definitive outcome would probably have been the result with more participation here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:58, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperintensity

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Is mostly a fork of White matter hyperintensity Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:00, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. White matter hyperintensity is a redirect to Leukoaraiosis which is only one disease that has pathology involving Hyperintensity. Leukoencephalopathy, hypoxic brain injury, etc. also have T2 hyperintensity imaging results. Not really seeing a need to delete this as they are different by related topics with WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 19:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hmm... saw Leukoaraiosis mostly talking about WMH, but you are right. I think its the a subcategory of WMH, so surprising it takes up the whole WMH redirect.
There is some weirdness happening here.
- Leukoaraiosis is a subcategory of WMH, and I think does not appear much often at all in literature (only 20k hits on google Scholar).
- WMH is the more widely used supercategory to define a presentation. (>100k hits on google scholar)
- Hyperintensity by itself does not mean much, just abnormal increase in intensity of something, this article is more about White matter hyperintensities.
I might be in favor of a merge Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The overbolding of every other term in the first few paragraphs of hyperintensity definitely suggest a lack of focus for the page. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That’s more of a style issue which can be fixed (although redirected words should be bolded under MOS). Honestly I think it’s best to leave the article where it is because hyperintensity, while more common in white matter, can also occur in gray matter. Gray matter hyperintensity is associated with Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, and can also be a sign of a stroke.4meter4 (talk) 03:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

those are fairly different clinical bases in general even if they show up similar in MRI.

a similar analogy would be high body temp… maybe its cuz person has a fever maybe they have heat stroke, but the measuring instrument says they have a very high temperature… even if there is a similar mechanism of the body overheating the underlying aspects are different enough they should not be combined into a single wikipedia article Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Undoubtedly there’s different clinical causes between hyperintensity appearing in gray matter versus white matter, but that’s not really relevant to what is essentially an article on an imaging term. Hyperintensity on an MRI scan is hyperintensity on an MRI scan no matter where it happens in terms of the kind of tissue it presents in. It seems to me you are confusing an imaging reading term used for diagnostic analysis with the pathophysiology of the diseases often associated with the imaging term. They are related but separate.4meter4 (talk) 11:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:07, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Perry Farrell#personal life. asilvering (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Etty Lau Farrell

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG, article is a biography of a person whose biggest claim to fame is being married to a notable musician. Sources presented are articles on Perry Farrell and Jane's Addiction (more than a few of which don't even mention Etty at all), primary interviews, passing mentions, etc. The sources with the most dedicated coverage to her here are a Forbes contributor article and a Wordpress blog (neither of which are in any way acceptable for BLP articles, see WP:FORBESCON and WP:WORDPRESS), virtually none of the others establish notability. Given the WP:BLP problems at play here, including numerous sections of unsourced content about the living subject, as well as the aforementioned WP:SIGCOV issues (which WP:BEFORE could not help alleviate, since most of the standalone coverage that a search could turn up is about her commentary on a single controversy from around the same period), this person is unworthy of an article. JeffSpaceman (talk) 00:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Perry Farrell#personal life per WP:ATD. The only sourcing I could find were all WP:TABLOID articles.4meter4 (talk) 04:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Women, Dance, Television, Hong Kong, California, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Perry Farrell#personal life. I am very familiar with Jane's Addiction so I know this story. Etty Lau does have some of her own accomplishments in dance and music, but usually these are only mentioned briefly in lists of credits for the works of more famous collaborators. She occasionally makes the news for involvement in her husband's management but it tends to be in the form of celebrity gossip (e.g. [21], [22]). She's closer to her own notability than it might appear at first glance, but there is not enough reliable and independent coverage to sustain an encyclopedic article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to List of Mega Man characters#Dr. Wily. asilvering (talk) 00:48, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Wily

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This has been redirected because it relies heavily on primary sources and the nominator's WP:BEFORE found nothing but game reviews, but i am here to give this article a second chance, Wily is a pretty popular character, it has been a year and a half since it was redirected, so doing a WP:BEFORE should find some reliable sources as a keep, but if not, we can restore the merge and redirect. Toby2023 (talk) 00:22, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restore Redirect and procedural close per WP:G4. This is the exact same article we looked at last time (zero alterations) and this is an abuse of process. It’s not AFD’s job to source hunt in this context, and the nominator didn’t even bother to suggest what these new sources are in asking for us to look at this again. If you want to work on it, do so in WP:USERSPACE by copy pasting the article into your WP:SANDBOX. When you have located new sources and then improved the article to a state where you think it meets WP:GNG undo the the redirect and make it live per WP:BOLD. If people disagree it may end back here at WP:AFD. At which point we will either confirm your opinion or reinstate the redirect. Don’t ask us to relook at anything that hasn’t changed since the last time we looked at it. Best.4meter4 (talk) 04:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Request Could someone please link the discussion leading to this becoming a redirect, because I cannot see it? Daranios (talk) 11:05, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To my knowledge it was BLAR'd after some scattered discussion, per reasons described in the edit summary and in this AfD's nom. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 12:59, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose procedural close, WP:G4 doesn't apply here, there hasn't been a previous AfD or other discussion, just someone BLARring the page. --Mika1h (talk) 15:01, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My sentiments exactly. Rather, after the article was boldly redirected, any editor with an opposing opinion is justified to restore the article and start a more thorough discussion according to the WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. That said though, it would have been the burden of the nominator to conduct a WP:BEFORE search according to the deletion process, which should not be pushed onto the participants of the discussion. It's an unusual case here, because the nominator is also the one who restored the article first, but still. Daranios (talk) 19:34, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd advise an analysis of the article's sourcing as well as of any potential sourcing, given that we're in this venue now, and especially so since the nom does not seem to have done a BEFORE. I'll take a look later myself and see if I find anything, but the current Reception is very much a lot of random listicle rankings and such that don't really say much, so I doubt most of it can really be considered Wikipedia:SIGCOV. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 15:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My BEFORE wasn't very fruitful. I turned up two Destructoid sources- [23] This one is a merchandise announcement that briefly covers how Wily's groveling became iconic, but that's pretty minor and can be summed up in a sentence. [24] This one happens to cover Wily's actions, but after reading it, it becomes apparent it's just a very dramatically worded summary of Wily's actions throughout the Mega Man series.

A look through Books yielded nothing bar trivial mentions and official material, and Scholar yielded the same. [25][26] These two mention Wily, but I can't access them, so I have no idea to what degree their coverage of him is. If both of these turn out to have nothing, then there's nothing really else for this guy at all. If someone who has access can assess these sources, I'd appreciate it greatly. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is the former accessible through this link? I've seen there very brief characterization as a "selfish scientist" with "aspirations of world domination", and a few sentences of plot summary there. Daranios (talk) 19:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Daranios Looks like they're one and the same, good find. It looks primarily to be about Mega Man the character and series, and less so Wily, who only gets mentioned a few times with very little substance. I doubt it'd be enough to help Wily. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Endorse I don't yet have an opinion on notability, but considering the article history, having an AFD discussion in lieu of a unilateral blank-and-redirect is reasonable. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:42, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect I really wish people would just give the BLAR process a chance; there's no indication of notability, nothing new has been presented to indicate notability, and instead if for some reason the character achieves notability later on, reviving it will be that much harder. Additionally it should be on the AfD nominator to do the before, not people responding to it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:36, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The articles I find uncontroversial to BLAR are something that is totally uncited or pure plot. If it even has a hint of citations, it should go to full AfD discussion. Many can interpret BLARs of fully cited articles as doing an end-run around an AfD, even if that is not intended. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fine personal standard, but there's no requirement for anyone to follow it. I've seen countless examples of articles that have citations but they're still nowhere near meeting the notability standards, and there was no reason to waste the community's time on them. Sergecross73 msg me 14:21, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to List of Mega Man characters#Dr. Wily. Taking the secondary sources together, it is possible to write a full, non-stubby article, therefore notability is established. We already have some commentary now, and that can be further expanded by using the sources. The fact that some of the sources are in list form in my view is not relevant, as long as they are reliable and have something non-trivial to say. I think it would be possible to do some more summarizing, so that it would also fit as an extended section at the list where it was previously redirected. But even if that were the way to go, I think there is more to merge here rather than simply redirecting, e.g. Dr. Wily's persistence and longevity within the franchise is a recurring theme in secondary sources like the IGN article. Daranios (talk) 11:42, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What sources are you saying help the subject meet independent notability? Its not particularly clear to me after skimming the article or this conversation thus far. Sergecross73 msg me 17:14, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Destructoid articles (at least that one) "Wily has been noted as a popular character and villain, and has been compared to similar characters such as Doctor Eggman.^[1] He placed thirty-ninth in GamePro's "47 Most Diabolical Video-Game Villains of All Time" article, noting him to be "[c]learly a standout from the overcrowded school of mad scientists".^[2] Guinness World Records Gamer's Edition listed Dr. Wily as 27th in their list of top 50 Villains.^[3] In a "Reader's Choice" edition of GameSpot's "Top Ten Video Game Villains" article, Wily placed fifth, and while noted as not receiving enough votes to place above Doctor Eggman on the list, the character came close.^[4] Dr. Wily ranked sixth on IGN's Top 10 Video Game Characters who should die along with his nemesis, Dr. Light. IGN editor Colin Moriarty stated that while their rivalry may have been fascinating for over 20 years, they need to go so the core series may advance.^[5] GamesRadar staff described Dr. Wily as one of the best villains in video games, stating that "Mad scientists are pretty standard fare, but Dr. Wily brings a certain flair to his evil schemes."^[6] Computerworld named Wily as one of gaming's "baddest villains", praising his persistence despite his failure at the conclusion of each Mega Man game.^[7] GameDaily named him one of their favorite older characters in video games and one of the "Top 25 Evil Masterminds of All Time", ranking him second on their list while stating "using good robots to do bad things is sheer genius."^[8]^[9] They additionally cited his rivalry with Mega Man as one of the ten greatest in video games, describing it as one "still going strong to this day."^[10] In a later article, they listed the "evil mastermind" as one of their top 25 video game archetypes, using Wily as an example.^[11] IGN listed him as the 13th Best Video Game Villain, calling him one of the most "hopelessly persistent" video game villains.^[12]" Daranios (talk) 19:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That all looks like pretty shallow listicle content. It supports your merge stance - you could write a minor list entry at the character list article - but I'm not really seeing the sourcing to prove notability or a keep stance... Sergecross73 msg me 20:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To boot too Guinness and reader polls should not on the surface be considered reliable per se, as they are both drawing their results from anonymous internet users. It's no better than citing internet comments or reader reviews.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. There are some sources I found ([27], [28]), but even with that first one, it feels more like Mega Man 2 reception. It's not unworkable for a Wily article, but it's not a strong piece of foundation either. If ever Wily gets an article, it will be after some deep, deep research. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:37, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per my comments above. There's enough to write a small entry in the character list, but not enough to support a full-article. There's not enough significant coverage for its own article. Sergecross73 msg me 16:33, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Williamson, Matt (1992-02-23). "Game Gear Puts Pedal to the Metal with 'Sonic' and 'Space Harrier'". Rocky Mountain News. Denver, Colorado: John Temple.
^ Staff (2008-02-04). "The 47 Most Diabolical Video-Game Villains of All Time". PC World. Archived from the original on 2012-04-15. Retrieved 2008-09-16.
^ "Bowser voted top of 50 video game villains". Digital Spy. 24 January 2013.
^ Staff. "TenSpot Reader'S Choice: Top Ten Video Game Villains". GameSpot. Archived from the original on 2007-07-09. Retrieved 2008-12-31.
^ "Wednesday 10: Video Game Characters That Should Die". IGN. 18 February 2009. Archived from the original on 28 March 2012. Retrieved 7 August 2009.
^ "The best villains in video games | GamesRadar ". 10 February 2018.
^ Gagne, Ken (2007-06-01). "You can run, but you'll only die tired: Gaming's 'baddest' villains". Computerworld. Archived from the original on 2008-04-23. Retrieved 2008-09-16.
^ Buffa, Chris. "Best Over the Hill Game Characters". GameDaily. AOL. Retrieved 2008-12-26.
^ Workman, Robert. "Top 25 Evil Masterminds of All Time". GameDaily. AOL. Retrieved 2008-12-26.
^ Workman, Robert. "Top 10 Greatest Video Game Rivalries". GameDaily. AOL. Retrieved 2008-12-26.
^ Kubba, Sinan. "Joystiq". Gamedaily.com. Retrieved 2013-05-24.
^ "Dr. Wily is number 13". IGN. Archived from the original on 2013-07-07. Retrieved 2013-05-24.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

[1] "Aruba Mirza calls herself 'Papa ki pari'". ARY News. 24 July 2023.

[2] "Voters declare Aruba Mirza winner of 'Tamasha Season 2'". The Express Tribune.

[3] "Il meglio della scienza del clima è al Cmcc". la Repubblica (in Italian). 2023-05-06. Retrieved 2024-11-11.

[4] Williamson, Matt (1992-02-23). "Game Gear Puts Pedal to the Metal with 'Sonic' and 'Space Harrier'". Rocky Mountain News. Denver, Colorado: John Temple.

[5] Staff (2008-02-04). "The 47 Most Diabolical Video-Game Villains of All Time". PC World. Archived from the original on 2012-04-15. Retrieved 2008-09-16.

[6] "Bowser voted top of 50 video game villains". Digital Spy. 24 January 2013.

[7] Staff. "TenSpot Reader'S Choice: Top Ten Video Game Villains". GameSpot. Archived from the original on 2007-07-09. Retrieved 2008-12-31.

[8] "Wednesday 10: Video Game Characters That Should Die". IGN. 18 February 2009. Archived from the original on 28 March 2012. Retrieved 7 August 2009.

[9] "The best villains in video games | GamesRadar ". 10 February 2018.

[10] Gagne, Ken (2007-06-01). "You can run, but you'll only die tired: Gaming's 'baddest' villains". Computerworld. Archived from the original on 2008-04-23. Retrieved 2008-09-16.

[11] Buffa, Chris. "Best Over the Hill Game Characters". GameDaily. AOL. Retrieved 2008-12-26.

[12] Workman, Robert. "Top 25 Evil Masterminds of All Time". GameDaily. AOL. Retrieved 2008-12-26.

[13] Workman, Robert. "Top 10 Greatest Video Game Rivalries". GameDaily. AOL. Retrieved 2008-12-26.

[14] Kubba, Sinan. "Joystiq". Gamedaily.com. Retrieved 2013-05-24.

[15] "Dr. Wily is number 13". IGN. Archived from the original on 2013-07-07. Retrieved 2013-05-24.

[1]

[2]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]